Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
set” in IBM would appear to be the (x, ?, ?) triples.
With regard to claim 5, appellants argue that the instant
claimed invention requires that the transaction T locks a subset
of the read set BEFORE processing certain operations (page 27 of
the principal brief). We do not find anything different in the
IBM disclosure and appellants have not pointed to anything
contrary in the IBM reference.
With regard to claim 6, appellants argue that the examiner
has not shown that a “subset” contains “all base data members of
the read set.” It appears to us that a subset (x, y, z) would
contain all base members of the read set (x, ?, ?), where x is a
“base member.” Appellants have not demonstrated anything to the
contrary. Merely pointing out what a claim recites and alleging
that the applied references do not disclose this limitation fails
to show error on the part of the examiner’s rationale.
With regard to claim 7, appellants argue that Colby does not
show the “maintenance” claimed because the claim requires the
maintenance to be performed on a “set of views in the read set.”
Again, appellants merely recite claim language and assert that it
is not shown in the references. However, the examiner has
explained how/why the references are combined and appellants have
-11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007