Appeal No. 2001-0051
Application No. 08/414,240
a case of obviousness, but instead is consistent with an improper hindsight
reconstruction of the invention.
The rejection (Answer at 5) concludes that “[w]hen the teaching of Richter is
applied to the system of COBRA 1.1 as modified [sic; the system of CORBA as
modified by the further teachings of Moeller and Danforth?], it would have been obvious
for the wrapper class to inherit from the servant class (‘inverse’ inheritance
relationship).” The conclusion is not based on any persuasive statement as to why the
artisan would have been led to modify the prior art disclosed or suggested by CORBA,
Moeller, and Danforth in view of the objective disclosure of Richter. Nor is it clear what
conclusion is to be drawn from the allegation in the statement of the rejection of claim
31 that Richter teaches that subclassing and superclassing are “alternative” to each
other.
The rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 20 (Answer at 7-9
and 11) also relies on Richter for teachings relating to the claimed inheritance
relationship with respect to a wrapper class and a servant class. We thus cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 20, or 31.
Since not all respective limitations of the independent claims have been shown
as disclosed or suggested by the prior art, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-16
and 19-43. The rejection of dependent claims 17 and 18, which adds Waldo to the
combination of CORBA, Moeller, Danforth, and Richter, fails to remedy the deficiencies
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007