Appeal No. 1998-0427
Application No. 08/283,466
information describing the “attributes” of the data objects. Describing “attributes” might be something
as simple as data type. With regard to information describing relationships between the data objects
and attributes as a “separate relationship object,” this could be simply a pointer for pointing to a piece
of data.
At page 8 of the principal brief, appellant contends that “by this separate relationship object one can
change dynamically the relationships without changing the data.” While this may be, we find no
corresponding claim language relative to dynamically changing relationships without changing data.
Thus, appellant’s comments in this regard are not persuasive.
At page 2 of the reply brief, appellant attempts to distinguish the claims over Heffernan by defining
an “object” as something more than merely data. Rather, appellant contends, “object” requires
“binding the code and data together.” Appellant further contends that an “object” is “data together with
code (or function) that acts upon it. Encapsulation is also part of an object. The data in the object is
only ever accessed through the function in the object.” It is our view that appellant has taken too
restrictive a view as to the meaning of “object,” which, in a broader sense, may be a
passive entity that contains or receives data; for example, bytes,
blocks, clocks, fields, files, directories, displays, keyboards, network
nodes, pages, printers, processors, programs, records, segments, words.1
1IBM Dictionary of Computing; compiled and edited by George McDaniel; McGraw-Hill,
Inc., Aug. 1993; page 471. A copy of the cover page and the page reciting the definition is attached
hereto.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007