Appeal 2007-1062
Application 10/034,438
object by distributing free space differently for the first range of key values
than for the second range of key values (Br. 16-18 and 21-23).
We reverse.
ISSUE
Does the applied prior art teach or would have suggested to the skilled
artisan non-uniformly distributing free space within the first and second sets
of rows of a file object by distributing free space differently for the first
range of key values than for the second range of key values?
FINDINGS OF FACT
As indicated supra, Appellant describes a method and device for non-
uniformly distributing free space within the first and second sets of rows of a
file object by distributing free space differently for a first range of key
values than for a second range of key values. Each of the claims on appeal
recites a variation of the non-uniform distribution of free space based on
different key values.
Iyer describes in-place reorganization of a database (Abstract). Iyer
states that “[t]he type of reorganization distributes free space evenly” (col. 3,
ll. 48 and 49). Iyer additionally states that “[o]ne type of degradation occurs
when free space becomes unevenly distributed among the file pages of a
table 108 space” (col. 7, ll. 12-15). The degradation problem is overcome by
a reorganization that “distributes free space evenly” (col. 7, ll. 24 and 25).
The reorganization of table 108 is performed in the background by
reorganizer 112 (Figures 1 and 11; col. 10, ll. 3-17). Iyer is concerned with
free pages as well as free space per page (col. 17, ll. 49-52).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013