Appeal No. 1999-1890
Application No. 08/566,618
subclass with the name of a class object in the system object
model environment. Thus, the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 13 nor of their dependents, claims 2 through 6 and 14
through 18. Furthermore, independent claim 7 recites a means
for accomplishing the method step of claims 1 and 13 that we
have found lacking from the combination of AAPA, Schmitter,
and Ellis. For essentially the same reasons discussed above,
we find the means for performing the step of creating a
subclass in the dynamic language and naming it with the unique
name of the class object in the system object model
environment lacking from the combination of references.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7 nor of
its dependents, claims 8 through 12.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007