Appeal No. 2001-2254
Application 08/951,937
complex functions performed by the mapping object of Mitchell
would require that the mapping object have data attributes.
Appellants also argue that since the mapping object of Mitchell
functions as a surrogate or client object to a server, it must
share some of the attributes of the server. Finally, appellants
argue that the one location of Mitchell relied on by the examiner
could only have been found in hindsight in light of appellants’
own teachings [brief, pages 3-6]. The examiner responds that
Mitchell never discloses that the mapping object has data
attributes. The examiner asserts that the mapping in Mitchell is
inherently done independently of the attributes and methods
contained in the original object [answer, pages 7-9].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16
because the examiner’s rejection fails to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation. We are unable to find support for the
examiner’s position that the mapping object of Mitchell is
without data attributes as claimed. We have reviewed the
portions of Mitchell cited by the examiner, but we are unable to
recognize within these cited portions a disclosure that the
mapping object is without attributes. On the contrary, it
appears to us that the mapping object does have attributes. For
example, Mitchell discloses that “[w]henever the ‘trigger’
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007