Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, none of the
functions of the Office Manager includes “restoring said
attributes to a restored object instance” as set forth in claim
1.
In summary, we agree with the appellants’ arguments (Brief,
pages 6 and 7) that Abraham does not disclose the claimed
“attribute extraction means,” “method construction means,” and
“data restoration means.” The obviousness rejection of claim 1
and the claims that depend therefrom is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8 is reversed
because the examiner has not come to grips with the accessing of
a “repository” for persistent attributes, and the above-noted2
“restoring” of persistent object data.
2There is a lack of antecedent basis for “said repository”
in claim 7.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007