Appeal No. 1999-1842
Application No. 08/042,930
Our review of the Yokote reference reveals a mention of a “Metaclass meta-object”
and a drawing showing a circle with various object therein, the circle labeled “meta-space
(Metaclass),” on page 15. However, we find nothing therein persuading us that a
metaclass is a meta-object, as contended by the examiner.
Appellant defines a metaclass as a class object which is itself an instance of
another class and the examiner has made no convincing showing that such a definition
would fit the meta-objects disclosed by Orr. Further, appellant argues that Orr does not
disclose deriving a new metaclass given a parent class and a second metaclass, as
claimed, and the examiner has presented no convincing showing to persuade us
otherwise.
Many of the terms used in this esoteric art of object-oriented systems are similar
and confusing and the skill level of artisans involved therein is quite high. Appellant
contends that two terms are not equivalent. The examiner contends otherwise. While we
cannot definitively state that the examiner is wrong, we take a balanced approach to
deciding this case. Because of the extremely esoteric art involved here, the burden may
be a bit more onerous on the examiner to explain, in a clear and rational manner, how the
art is being applied to the claimed subject matter but the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case still lies with the examiner. On balance, we come down
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007