Appeal No. 2001-0024
Application No. 08/827,285 Page 10
in claim 3.” Appellants respond (reply brief, page 5) with
respect to (b) that the examiner:
[D]oes not give any rationale or support for why
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide a single class with the
limitations in claim 3. This is really the stake
through the heart of the Examiner’s argument. In
the Answer, the Examiner states that Table II in
Marks at col. 9, line 16 to col. 10, line 61, is
equivalent to the Chart of Account Attributes in
claim 3. However, Table II in Marks is a table
of data. Classes in an object oriented system
specify both data and object methods for operating
on that data. For this reason Table II in Marks
cannot properly read on the Chart of Account
Attributes object class in claim 3.
Appellants respond (reply brief, page 4) with respect to (c)
that:
Marks teaches that data entered by a user is
compared to data stored in a ledger file.
Certainly the operation being performed is
properly characterized as an ‘analysis’, but
this analysis is an analysis of the data entered
by a user against the ledger data, not an analysis
of the ledger data. The ledger data is simply read
and used as a reference for analyzing data input by
a user. Broadly interpreting such static data as an
‘analysis group’ is clearly a stretch beyond the
reasonable bounds of the teachings of Marks.
From our review of Bigus and Marks, as well as the arguments
presented by appellants and the examiner, we are in agreement
with appellants, for the reasons which follow, that the prior art
does not teach or suggest applying the object oriented framework
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007