Appeal No. 2001-1270
Application No. 08/619,060
properties.” Appellants provide an example of a name/value pair in the instant
specification. “The property named ‘class’ is accessed by name and its value is
checked against the string ‘dog.’” (Spec. at 10, ll. 19-20.) In accordance with the
language of claim 1, we interpret the claim as requiring the addition of properties to
each node, provided as the name of a property and the value of the property, within a
tree search conducted by an object-based program.
The Answer asserts (at 5) that “[r]esolving the name value for an object is
deemed to search for properties of an object which are bound in the access control list
(‘ACL’).” However, according to the reference, the binding list in a context object binds
an object to a name. See, e.g., col. 5, ll. 46-55. An access control list, on the other
hand, determines if a principal (i.e., a user; col. 4, l. 65 - col. 5, l. 4) has access rights to
an object. See, e.g., col. 5, ll. 12-15 and ll. 58-61; col. 6, ll. 8-22.
Thus, in our view, while a context object in Nelson may contain a binding list to
associate an object and a name and an access control list that determines if a principal
may access an object, neither the binding list nor the access control list, nor any
combination of the two, may be deemed a name/value pair sequence as claimed.
We are thus persuaded by appellants that the finding of anticipation with respect
to claim 1 is erroneous. Independent claim 11 contains language identical to claim 1
with respect to “means for providing the addition of properties.” The remaining
independent claim (21) requires “providing the addition of properties as name/value pair
sequence to each node within a tree search conducted by said object-based program.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007