Ex parte DANFORTH - Page 2




             Appeal No. 1999-1842                                                                               
             Application No. 08/042,930                                                                         


             which are developed by subclassing from a parent class.  A metaclass, as defined in the            
             instant specification, is a class object which is itself an instance of another class.             
                   Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                                 
                   1.    A method for deriving a metaclass for a new class defined by                           
                   subclassing at least one parent class, comprising the steps of:                              
                          executing a set of instructions to construct the new class stored in a                
                   memory;                                                                                      
                          deriving a new class metaclass for the new class given both a parent                  
                   class metaclass for the at least one parent class and a second metaclass;                    
                   and,                                                                                         
                          creating the new class in the memory according to the new class                       
                   metaclass.                                                                                   
                   The examiner relies on the following reference:                                              
                   Orr et al. (Orr), “OMOS-An Objected Server for Program Execution”, IEEE 1992.                
                   Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Orr.                   
                   Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of                    
             appellant and the examiner.                                                                        
                                                   OPINION                                                      
                   We reverse.                                                                                  
                   The burden, in the first instance, of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation is     
             on the examiner.                                                                                   



                                                       2                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007