It was last updated on 2018-03-29. 2018 WinSite.com.SQL Data Examiner 2010 R2 is a reliable and user-friendly tool for comparing and synchronizing databases. The events and data columns are stored in a physical trace file for later examination. DotConnect for SQL Server Standard is an enhanced data provider for SQL Server that will allow you to build on the ADO.NET technology to present a complete solution for developing SQL Server-based database.
Bibliographic information is available in:Now you can compare data in MySQL databases. JTop Medical Certifications Providers. JTop 3 Marketing Certifications Providers.
To start a new comparison, simply click the New button, located on the toolbar, or select File New in the File menu. You’ll learn how in this short, step-by-step tutorial. Comparing and synchronizing two databases is easier than you think. 4.0.0 no details available 3.2.0.77 no details available 3.2.0.35 no details available Back to SQL Examiner SuiteGetting started with SQL Examiner.
In the notice of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the documents on file. The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary requests I and II, "when assuming a technical realization of the method of claim 1 using a relational database system (as known in the art)", lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC (point 11.1.1).With regard to the main request, the Examining Division further decided that the subject-matter of the claims on file was also rendered obvious by "a number of prior art documents that, in addition to employing general purpose computer components, also relate to essentially the same non-technical rationale involving efficiently updating individual values of nested data objects within a table of a relational database" (point 10.1.3), for example the following documents:D4: US 6 122 644, published on 19 September 2000.III. It decided that the subject-matter of claims 1 to 19 was not inventive over a notoriously known general purpose computer (points 10.1.1.2.7 and 10.1.2). The Examining Division was also of the view that even if claim 1 were amended to define a computer-implemented method, such a hypothetical claim 1 would not involve an inventive step (point 10.1.1.2.2).
The final requests by the appellant are thus that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request or on the basis of one of auxiliary requests I and II.VII. In a subsequent letter, the appellant agreed not to have oral proceedings if the Board intended to remit the case, but requested that the Board reconsider the question of remittal.VI. The appellant was invited to indicate whether it agreed to a remittal for further prosecution without oral proceedings being held first.V. The inventive-step analysis based on document D3 or D4 merely cited a few passages of those documents without providing a detailed comparison of the claimed features.Since the Board did not uphold any of the grounds for refusal on the basis of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, and none of the lines of reasoning of the contested decision could serve as a basis for considering the issue of inventive step, the Board intended to remit the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution. The objection for lack of inventive step on the basis of a general-purpose computer ignored features considered technical by the Board and was not convincing. In a communication pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC, the Board expressed disagreement with the reasoning of the decision under appeal.The Board did not endorse the contested decision's assessment of technicality, and was of the preliminary opinion that none of the requests related to subject-matter excluded by Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.
The change descriptor "represents an aggregation of changes to the values in the collection-valued column and the location of the values to be updated in the hierarchy of the complex structured type column". As explained in paragraph , the system "includes a parser that parses a database modification (query) statement and produces a logical description of changes to the table as specified by the UPDATE statement, a query optimizer that produces the execution algorithm that will perform the modifications, and finally a query execution engine that implements the execution algorithm".2.3 In order to modify collection-valued columns, the execution algorithm uses a data structure named "change descriptor". According to the description, the purpose of the invention is to achieve complex and partial updates efficiently (see paragraph of the international publication).2.1 A complex structured type consists of a set of fields, properties and methods, wherein each field or property can be a scalar type, a complex structured type itself, or a multiset in which each element is a complex structured type (paragraph ).2.2 The database system of the invention uses a nested extension of the SQL UPDATE statement which supports the modification of collection-valued columns using syntax and semantics analogous to those of the conventional UPDATE statement (paragraphs and to ). The invention concerns a relational database system and a corresponding method for updating values in a complex-structured-type column. The appeal complies with the provisions referred to in Rule 101 EPC and is therefore admissible.2. The appellant's arguments, where relevant to this decision, are discussed in detail below.1.
The query execution engine "reads the change descriptor and applies the changes as described by it to the collection-valued columns in addition to using simple scalar updates for the scalar valued columns" (paragraphs and ).2.
0 kommentar(er)
