Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
evidence of the truth of the assertion. The examiner has not
complied with the request.
The term “polymorphism” is defined by appellant in the
specification [top of page 20] as
the practice of defining the same named method in
different classes and having that method execute
possibly distinct tasks from one class to the next.
It is not clear to us whether the claim limitation of
“maintaining a method entity...” is meant to be a statement
relating to such a “polymorphism.”
In any event, claim 1 clearly calls for “maintaining a
method entity...” and the examiner has not identified, to our
satisfaction, anything in the prior art which would have
suggested this limitation. The examiner simply points to the
“Entity-relationship” in Figure 4 of Joseph and asserts,
apparently, that this is the suggestion for modifying Ferrer
to include a step of “maintaining a method entity...” While
appellant’s arguments are not impressive, since they basically
contend that the claimed steps are not taught by the applied
references without any further detail as to why this is the
case, we still will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007