Appeal No. 2001-1270
Application No. 08/619,060
Claims 1, 5-11, 15-21, and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Nelson. Another rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over different prior art
has been withdrawn by the examiner in the Examiner’s Answer.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 14) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) for
appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to the section 102 rejection of all remaining claims as being
anticipated by Nelson, appellants argue, inter alia, there is no tree search in Nelson as
required by the claims: i.e., as in claim 1, “providing the addition of properties as
name/value pair sequence to each node within a tree search conducted by said object-
based program.” This is so, appellants argue, because in Nelson the names are
already bound to the objects; the context object contains an access control list (ACL) so
that the client need merely search on the bound name. (Brief at 6.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007