Appeal No. 2003-1770
Application No. 09/526,155
In addition, lines 7-20 of column 11 provide further details
of the lock table and the relationship between the list-structure
and the lock table, thereby supplying additional evidence that
Frey's invention includes a lock table. Therefore, Frey fails to
teach the claimed determination of whether to grant a lock
"without using a lock compatibility table."
We note that the examiner (Answer, pages 4-5) points to
column 8, lines 14-25, and column 14, lines 14-67, as evidence
that for evaluating lock requests, Frey's list structure "need
not use a lock table." The examiner states (Answer, pages 4-5)
that "Frey discloses that in lieu of lock tables, local-vector
caches may be used for both local and global summary." However,
we see nothing in Frey that suggests that the local-vector caches
are used "in lieu of lock tables." As we have found nothing in
Frey that teaches or suggests determining whether to grant a lock
without using a lock compatibility table, Frey fails to
anticipate claims 1 through 3 and 12. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007