Appeal No. 1999-1890
Application No. 08/566,618
our attention on Ellis and the combination thereof with AAPA
and Schmitter.
Ellis discloses that a class may be derived from another
class, termed a base class. The derived class may be called a
subclass. Ellis says nothing about why one would create a
subclass in a dynamic language having the unique name of a
class object in a system object model environment. Neither
AAPA nor Schmitter provides a reason for creating such a
subclass. The examiner merely states "it would be [sic, would
have been] obvious . . . to use the system of the Background
as modified by Schmitter to [sic, with] the system of Ellis
because it would allow the ability [to] create subclasses and
give names to class objects." (Answer, page 5). The claims
recite more than merely creating subclasses and naming class
objects. The claims require
creating a subclass in the dynamic language and naming it with
the unique name of the class object in the system object model
environment. The examiner fails to provide any rationale for
creating a subclass in the dynamic language and linking the
subclass to the system object model environment by naming the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007