Appeal No. 2001-2000
Application No. 08/964,096
do not go beyond general understandings in the object-
oriented programming art that persistent objects are
permanently stored.
At page 6 of the answer, the examiner relies upon
Cavanaugh only for details relating to persistent class
descriptions of which the examiner views Anderson as not
providing explicit detail thereof. The entire disclosure of
Cavanaugh relates to storing persistent objects according to
different methodologies. The examiner has not pointed to
any feature of Cavanaugh nor do we discern any which would
make up for the deficiencies of Anderson, even assuming for
the sake of argument that they are properly combinable
within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, Cavanaugh does not appear to
relate to the specific requirements noted earlier of each
independent claim on appeal relating to migrating the
object.
Therefore, since the combination of Anderson and
Cavanaugh does not appear to us to have yielded the subject
matter of each independent claim on appeal, the decision of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007