Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
not persuasive to us. The other people in the crowd, by
themselves, may not constitute a “superset” as to the man, just
as the other tuples, by themselves, may not constitute a
“superset” relative to the target view tuple (x, y, z). However,
the man in the crowd is part of the entire crowd and the entire
crowd (including the man) is a “superset” of the man, just as the
target view tuple (x, y, z) is part of the set (x, ?, ?) and the
entire set (including (x, y, z)) would be a “superset” of the
target view tuple (x, y, z), under appellants’ definition of a
set containing “the tuple, but additional data, or tuples”.
Appellants also argue that there is nothing in the
references showing that the “locking” is “in response to”
detection of a “read-lock-request.” In particular, appellants
attempt to distinguish between locks, themselves, which are
clearly described in IBM, and a “request” for a lock. Appellants
state that the existence, or suggestion, of locks in the
reference does not imply the existence of ”requests for locks.”
We disagree.
If a data processing system performs a locking function,
artisans would have understood that there had to be a “request”
for that locking function, either by a user, or by the processing
program itself, or both. A processor does not perform functions,
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007