Appeal No. 2001-0024
Application No. 08/827,285 Page 7
Appellants assert (answer, page 5) that: (a) the computer
program in Marks is not object oriented, so that it does not
contain cooperating objects as recited in claim 3. Appellants
argue (brief, page 8) that:
Bigus makes it clear that the quality of a framework
rests on design choices involving which aspects are
core and which aspects are extensible. In examining
Bigus, which relates specifically to data mining, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have no idea how
to select which functions in Marks to make core and
which to make extensible.
Appellants further assert (page 6) that: (b) claim 3 recites a
single “‘Chart of Account Attributes object class that specifies
an analysis group account types, and account attributes of the
business financial data’,” and that even if the prior art teaches
multiple classes with these features, there is no motivation to
combine these multiple classes into a single class, as required
by claim 3. It is further asserted (brief, page 7) that: (c)
neither the symbolic control records nor the symbolic codes in
Marks relate in any way to analyzing anything, and that these
features of Marks cannot read on the analysis group of claim 3,
and (brief, pages 7 and 8) that: (d) “[f]or this reason, the
teaching in Marks does not properly read on the ‘account
attributes’ in claim 3.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007