Appeal No. 1999-1890
Application No. 08/566,618
class object in the system object model environment. Although
appellants discuss at length the applicability of Schmitter
and its combination with AAPA, we have questions as to whether
AAPA would meet the claimed method step without an additional
reference. Specifically, appellants state (specification,
paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3) that the dynamic language
calls "unknown" methods when the object receives a message
that is not recognized by the dynamic language, and these
"unknown" methods enable redirection of messages to the SOM
objects. The calling of such methods for a class object seems
to correspond to calling a dispatcher for searching methods
for the class object.
Nonetheless, we need not resolve the above questions, as
we find the step of creating a subclass lacking from the
combination of AAPA, Schmitter, and Ellis. The examiner
admits (Answer, pages 4-5) that the combination of AAPA and
Schmitter fails to teach the claimed step of "creating a
subclass in said dynamic language having the unique name of
said class object in said system object model environment."
The examiner relies upon Ellis for this missing limitation,
which appears in independent claims 1 and 13. We, thus, focus
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007