Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
world, giving, as an example, triples which represent record
structures, where each triple takes the form (key, relationship
name, attribute field). In discussing triple locking, IBM states
that this is achieved by passing to a lock manager only the x
component of a triple, and that this “effectively locks all
triples of the form (x, ?, ?), since locking requests for any
triples of this form cannot be distinguished.” Thus, it is clear
to us that in locking the triple, or tuple, IBM also locks all
triples belonging to the set of triples of the form (x, ?, ?).
Since the triple of interest, (x, y, z) is derived from the set
of triples (x, ?, ?), i.e., (x, ?, ?) is the “superset” of
triples, or tuples, from which the target view triple (x, y, z)
is derived, the instant claim language is met.
Appellants argue that the set (x, ?, ?) is not a “superset”
of tuples from which the target view tuple is derived but that
the set (x, ?, ?) merely describes other tuples which are part of
the same set to which the target view tuple (x, y, z) belongs but
that these other tuples are not a “superset” of the target view
tuple. Appellants give the example of being in a crowd in a
building with other people, contending that a man in that crowd
may be locked in the building with other people but the other
people do not comprise a “superset” of the man. The analogy is
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007