Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner must not only
identify the elements in the prior art or that knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead the individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
It is the examiner’s position that IBM discloses a database
with triples (tuples). The examiner notes that IBM does not
specifically teach “views” of a database, but the examiner relies
on Colby for a teaching of a materialized view of databases
associated with data warehouses (Colby, p. 469, abstract),
concluding that it would have been obvious “to apply Colby to
IBM, because of Colby’s taught advantage of database views,
providing a user of IBM a way to visualize results from users
concurrently accessing said triples” (answer-page 4).
The examiner also notes that IBM does not specifically teach
a “read-lock-request” but that this would have been obvious
“because IBM’s teaching of database locks for deadlock prevention
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007