Appeal No. 1998-0427
Application No. 08/283,466
This is definition (2), out of thirteen, listed in the IBM dictionary. Appellant appears to prefer definition
(10):
In object-oriented design or programming, an abstraction
consisting of data and the operations associated with that
data.
Clearly, the broader definition (2) would not be an unreasonable interpretation of the instant claimed
“object.”
Having said all that, and even in view of the very broad nature of the instant claims, particularly claim
1, we, nevertheless, will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 under
35 U.S.C. 102(e) because, in our view, the examiner has simply not established a prima facie case of
anticipation.
In one form or another, each of the claims requires at least a separate relationship object so that a
certain relationship between data objects and attributes is indicated. The examiner relies on Heffernan
as an anticipatory reference, specifically relying on the single dictionary disclosed by Heffernan as the
claimed means for storing information describing the relationships between a plurality of data objects,
whereby the relationships are stored as a separate relationship object.
However, from our review of the reference, it appears that Heffernan is concerned with accessing
data stored in “non-relational data files.” Thus, by definition, Heffernan’s non-relational data files would
not appear capable of comprising any type of “separate relationship object,” as required by the instant
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007