Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Abraham et al. (Abraham) 5,291,593 Mar. 1, 1994
(filed Oct. 24, 1990)
Filepp et al. (Filepp) 5,347,632 Sept. 13, 1994
(filed July 28, 1989)
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Abraham in view of Filepp.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 3) that Abraham’s
system includes:
an object oriented computer system having a memory
(112) for storing data objects;
a processor (114) for manipulating data objects;
operator interaction means (116).
Although data 214 (Figure 2) represent various attributes
(e.g., number, names and types) of the object 202 (column 2,
lines 8 through 11 and column 5, lines 1 through 16), and “Object
Reference 300 is likely to be a data attribute within some other
persistent object that has saved the object ID” (column 7, lines
51 through 53), the examiner has not demonstrated how the
“attribute extraction means (300)” (Answer, page 3) in Abraham is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007