Appeal No. 2001-0051
Application No. 08/414,240
OPINION
The rejection of instant claim 31 is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.
Appellants contend (Reply Brief at 2) that the rejection errs in equating superclassing,
as disclosed by Richter, with an “inverse inheritance” relationship. Appellants argue
that an “inverse inheritance” relationship is an implicit requirement of the instant claims.
According to appellants, the requirement follows from language in claim 31 regarding
the wrapper class having an inheritance relationship with the servant class; in particular,
that the wrapper class inherits from the developer-written servant class of developer-
written objects.
Appellants rely on the definition of “inheritance” as set forth in the glossary of a
text entitled “Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications.” Appellants
submitted a copy of the relevant section of the glossary as an attachment to the Reply
Brief. The definition indicates that inheritance is a relationship among classes, wherein
one class shares the structure or behavior defined in one or more other classes. The
definition further indicates that a subclass inherits from one or more generalized
superclasses. Appellants argue that, in view of the relevant definition, the
superclassing and subclassing as disclosed by Richter have no relation to inverse
inheritance. (Reply Brief at 5.)
The examiner responds that the above-noted glossary is not part of the
application as filed. (Supp. Answer at 12-13.) The examiner adds that the definition of
“inverse” inheritance relationships is that of appellants; only the standard or
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007