Appeal No. 2000-0935
Application 08/567,447
repository that stores abstract of
information is met by Spencer.
In light of the applicants’ argument, the burden has shifted
to the examiner to establish that the same word is not being
used differently in Spencer as it is in the appellants’
specification. That, however, the examiner has not done. The
above-quoted text from the examiner’s answer begs the
question, ignores the applicants’ position, and simply assumes
that there is no difference between how the term “abstract” is
being used.
The fundamental question raised by the applicants, i.e.,
why is an “abstract class” of query nodes in object-oriented
programming language such as C++, which essentially represent
only incomplete sets of features to which unique
characteristics must be added to define real classes of
objects, the same as an “abstract” (in the sense of a summary
of particular features) of raw business data, has not been
addressed by the examiner. The applicants’ argument raises a
very good point: “it seems as if the Examiner is attempting to
find similar words in a reference and convolute that wording
into a hindsight rejection of Applicants’ invention” (Br. at
8). Proper examination entails more than a search for the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007