Appeal No. 2001-0024
Application No. 08/827,285 Page 12
functions and which functions of Marks should become extensible
functions, absent appellants' disclosure. We are not persuaded
by appellants' assertion that claim 3 is not directed to a single
class (brief, page 6), as the claim recites "wherein the general
ledger Application category of cooperating objects includes a
Chart of Account Attributes object class" which does not exclude
additional classes. Also, the transitional phrase "comprising"
used in claim 3 is open-ended in nature and does not preclude
additional classes. However, although we find that claim 3 is
not limited to a single class, we find that even though the
symbolic control records are grouped together under specific
ledger files that can be used for comparing data entered by the
examiner with data stored in the ledger files, the comparison, in
and of itself, is not an analysis group. We therefore find that
the comparison does not meet the claimed "analysis group" recited
in claim 3.
Moreover, we do not agree with the examiner (answer, page 4)
that Table II of Marks is the equivalent to the “Chart of Account
Attributes". Claim 3 recites "a Chart of Account Attributes
object class." Because Table II of Marks is a table of data, and
classes in an object oriented system specify both data and
objects for operating on data, we find that Table II of Marks is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007