Appeal No. 2001-0051
Application No. 08/414,240
behavior of a window only slightly; the default behavior for the class of window is
normally performed. Id. at 63-65; Fig. 2-1.
Richter teaches that window superclassing is similar to window subclassing in
that messages intended for the window procedure of the original class are routed to a
different procedure that the user supplies. Superclassing alters the behavior of an
existing window class, called the “base class.” When superclassing a window class, the
user must register a new window class with the operating system. When a message is
dispatched to the superclassed window, the operating system examines the memory
block for the window and calls the superclass window procedure. After the superclass
window procedure processes the message, it passes the message to the window
procedure associated with the base class. Id. at 93; Fig. 2-5.
Richter further teaches that the main difference between subclassing and
superclassing is that subclassing alters the behavior of an existing window, while
superclassing alters the behavior of all instances of windows created from an existing
window class. Id. at 97.
We are persuaded by appellants that Richter fails to teach the “inverse”
inheritance relationship that the rejection attributes to the reference. The rejection
asserts that a servant class inheriting from a wrapper class, and a wrapper class
inheriting from a servant class “resemble” a “standard” inheritance relationship and an
“inverse” inheritance relationship, respectively. (Answer at 5.) The rejection further
asserts that Richter teaches a “standard” inheritance -- which the rejection equates with
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007