Appeal 2007-1062
Application 10/034,438
range of key values than for a second range of key values (Specification 8 to
10).
Claim 35 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
35. A database free space management method, comprising:
designating a first set of rows of a file object with a first range of key
values;
designating a second set of rows of the file object with a second range
of key values; and
non-uniformly distributing free space within the first and second sets
of rows of the file object by distributing free space differently for the first
range of key values than for the second range of key values.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eberhard US 6,003,022 Dec. 14, 1999
Iyer US 6,411,964 B1 Jun. 25, 2002
(filed Dec. 23, 1998)
Pereira US 6,584,474 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed Aug. 31, 1998)
The Examiner rejected claims 18 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Iyer and Pereira.
The Examiner rejected claims 35 to 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Iyer and Eberhard.
Appellant contends that the motivation for combining the applied
references lacks merit in view of the teachings of the references, and that the
combined teachings of the references fail to teach or suggest non-uniformly
distributing free space within the first and second sets of rows of the file
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013