Appeal No. 2004-2267 Page 7
Application No. 09/651,184
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Case law on must be arranged as claimed
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster
Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Here, Nori discloses "techniques for handling large objects (LOBS) within a client
server database system." Col. 1, ll. 14-15. When a client requests a LOB, a "database
server does not send an entire LOB to a client. . . . Instead, the server constructs and
sends to the client a special data structure, . . . a LOB locator, that acts as a 'handle'
through which access to the LOB is performed." Col. 4, ll. 34-39.
"The client then may issue one or more requests to operate on randomly
selected portions of the LOB. With each of the requests, the client passes back to the
server the locator for the LOB." Id. at ll. 59-62. "The rowid value within a locator is
used to verify that the row to which a LOB belongs is locked before the LOB is
updated." Col. 13, ll. 8-9. The first passage of the reference relied on by the examiner
discloses that "[b]efore proceeding with the update, the server reads the table-id and
rowid values from the locator. The server then determines whether the specified row of
the specified table is locked." Id. at ll. 28-31. When another client holds a lock on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007