Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
suggests both read and write locks, which are both common and
known tools for preserving database data integrity (IBM near
bottom; compare with claim 1 “means for detecting issuance of a
read-lock-request for a target view tuple”)” (answer-page 4).
With regard to the claim limitation “in response...,” the
examiner alleges “in response to a lock request of a record, a
collection (superset) of tuples factored into a number of sub
collections are locked, in addition to locking said record (IBM
at middle; compare with claim 1 “in response, locking tuples in
the database which include a superset of tuples from which a
target view tuple is derived”)” (answer-page 4).
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been
successfully rebutted by appellants.
Initially, we note that it is our view that Colby is merely
cumulative to what is already suggested by IBM. That is, while
the examiner relies on Colby for a teaching of “views” of a
database, IBM already implicitly discloses such “views.”
Appellants have defined a “view” as being a part of a database
which is copied to another location and appellants have defined a
“tuple” as being data of interest within the database (presumably
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007