Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
e.g., locking, unless it is told (i.e., “requested”) to do so,
either by manual intervention by a user or via its programming.
It appears that appellants are reading the term “request” too
narrowly.
In any event, there does not appear to be a need for such
“interpretations” as to whether a locking “request” is suggested
by IBM because the IBM reference, itself, clearly indicates that
there are “locking requests” (see the disclosure 9 and 12 lines
up from the bottom of the page of IBM). Manifestly, if there is
a locking request, as disclosed by IBM, there must inherently be
a way for the system to “detect” that request in order to carry
out the request. Accordingly, there is also some means for
detecting issuance of a read-lock-request, as claimed, in IBM.
Appellants also argue that the read-lock-request “applies to
something in the view, not in the database” (principal brief-page
7). We are unsure as to what exact claim language appellants
rely on for this point since no claim language appears to make
this requirement, nor are we sure why the disclosure of IBM would
not fit this alleged situation. Appellants appear to be saying
that the means for detecting is in the view while the thing being
locked is in the database but we find no such language in the
instant claims. Accordingly, appellants’ argument in this regard
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007