Appeal No. 2001-2000
Application No. 08/964,096
seems to follow the industry practice of storing with an
object a set of fields of which the object is an instance
and not with one which such a relationship does not exist.
It is noted that each independent claim on appeal also
requires that the object, with a modified set of fields
having the modification, is not an instance of the class.
We therefore tend to agree with appellants’ continued
statements at the middle of page 3 of the reply brief that
according to conventional practice, if changes do affect an
inheritance pattern of objects, they are permanently stored
with indexes which reflect the new inheritance pattern and
not with indexes which do not reflect that pattern and that
are accompanied by actions to be performed by an object
reader to reproduce a true set of indexes.
The examiner’s various “interpretations” of the
teachings of Anderson in the statement of the rejection of
the independent claims at pages 5 and 6 of the answer appear
to be not supported by the actual referenced teachings and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007