Appeal No. 2001-2000
Application No. 08/964,096
OPINION
We reverse.
Each of independent claims 18, 24 and 30 on appeal in
some manner recite a feature of migrating an object of an
object-oriented programming system to a modified set of
fields in a persistent version by automatically storing in
permanent storage with the migrated object, the initial set
of fields unchanged by at least one modification along with
any action necessary to change the initial set of fields to
the modified set of fields. It is these features on which
appellants persistently argue patentability in the brief and
reply brief and with which we agree.
As even the title of Anderson reveals, we also find
ourselves in agreement with appellants’ observations at the
bottom of page 2 of the reply brief that the examiner and
appellants view the teachings in Anderson as being based
upon techniques that allow manipulation of different
versions of objects. Appellants continue “this does not
mean that any version of an object in Anderson is stored in
permanent storage with a set of indexes for a class that is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007