Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
pointed to no error in the examiner’s reasoning. For example,
appellants contend that the claim requires the maintenance to be
performed on a “set of views in the read set” but does not show
why the IBM/Colby combination is not deemed to perform the
maintenance on a set of views in the read set.
Claims 8-10 fall with claims 1, 4 and 7 in accordance with
appellants’ statement at page 29 of the principal brief.
Independent claims 11 and 12 comprise limitations similar to
those discussed supra and the rejection of these claims is
sustained for the reasons supra.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, appellants argue that these
claims require that a transaction is aborted if a “condition”
occurs, namely that a warning is issued, and that the warning is
only issued under certain circumstances. Appellants assert that
the mere existence of the process of aborting in IBM is
insufficient to show these conditional relationships (principal
brief-page 33). The “warning” in IBM would be the disclosure
that “if any subcollection of triples is already locked, the
locking request is refused and locks already acquired are freed”
(i.e., the lock is aborted, as claimed).
Claims 15, 16 and 18-24 contain limitations which have been
discussed supra and, for those reasons, we will also sustain the
-12–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007