Appeal No. 2000-1973
Application 08/890,906
to access privileges" (EA10) is erroneous. The examiner's
statement that the "disclosures by Kelly are entirely consistent
with the standard definitions of encapsulation" (EA10) fails to
prove that Kelly discloses encapsulation as claimed. Endicott
does not cure the deficiencies of Kelly. Accordingly, we
conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness as to independent claims 2 and 21. The
rejection of claims 2-6, 21, and 22 is reversed.
Claim 12 contains limitations similar to claims 2 and 21
except that it refers to "server" and "client" objects. The
examiner applies Tanaka as disclosing enforcing encapsulation
using client and server objects (EA5-6).
The combination of Kelly and Endicott does not teach or
suggest enforcing encapsulation of an object containing data and
a method program for the reasons discussed in connection with
claims 2 and 21. We find nothing in Tanaka that cures the
deficiencies of Kelly and Endicott. We conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to independent claim 12. The reference to
Yoshihiro does not cure the deficiencies of Kelly, Endicott, and
Tanaka. The rejections of claims 12-20 are reversed.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007