Appeal No. 1999-1842
Application No. 08/042,930
The examiner cites Orr, applies its teachings to the claim limitations and, concludes
that the “meta-objects” disclosed by Orr are equivalent to the claimed “metaclass.”
Appellant strenuously contends that “the meta-objects of Orr are NOT equivalent to
the metaclasses of Applicant’s invention” [brief-page 7]. Appellant cites definitions
adopted by the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) as: “A meta-object is described as
including a class “standard-object” and instances of the classes “standard-method”,
“standard-generic-function”, and “method-combination”.” A “metaclass is described as
including the classes “standard-class”, “built-in-class”, and “structure-class”.” [Brief-page
6]. While appellant does not describe these various classes, appellant concludes that the
skilled artisan “can appreciate can [sic] that meta-objects and metaclasses are genuinely
and clearly different.”
As support for the equivalency of a metaclass and meta-object, the examiner cites
a 1991 publication by Yokote et al., entitled, “The Muse Object Architecture: A New
Operating System Structuring Concept.” More particularly, the examiner cites section 4.1
and page 15 thereof for the proposition that at the time of the invention the term meta-
object was understood to include metaclasses. The examiner then submits that “a meta-
class is a meta-object” [answer-page 5].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007