Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
is not persuasive.
With regard to claim 2, appellants argue that IBM does not
show the claimed “wherein the superset is limited to a derivation
set of the target view tuple.” We disagree. As explained supra,
the superset in IBM includes those tuples of the form (x, ?, ?).
It is clear that the target view tuple (x, y, z) is a derivation
of the broader (x, ?, ?) tuples constituting the “superset.”
With regard to claim 4, appellants argue that this claim
requires a transaction T to issue the read-lock-request and that
prior to the issuance of the request, the transaction T declares
a read set which contains all data to be read by transaction T.
It is appellants’ view that the applied references do not suggest
this limitation. We disagree. As explained by the examiner, at
pages 4-5 of the answer, IBM discloses a transaction which,
subsequent to a record locking attempt, reads a set of related
sub collection of triples (x, ?, ?) to see if any triples are
already locked, and if none are locked, a lock request is issued
to complete the record locking attempt.
Appellants argue, at page 25 of the reply brief, that the
examiner may have shown that an independent transaction has
occurred but that claim 4 requires the “read set.” The “read
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007