Appeal No. 2001-2581
Application No. 08/847,124
12, lines 14-25). The examiner recognizes that McGurrin does not
teach the use of an offset in order to reference the enclosing
object.
Thus, the examiner turns to Aho for a teaching of an
embedded class (child node) having an offset data member and the
step of retrieving “this difference and combining it to the
embedded object address (name) to generate the enclosing object
address (name of leader/name of parent)(pg. 449; Fig. 7.46; “..we
can discover that A is located 10 positions before D, since the
sum of the offsets on the path from A to D is 100+(-110) =-10.”)
(answer-page 3).
Therefore, concludes the examiner, it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of McGurrin and Aho “in order to
facilitate direct addressing using offsets” (answer-page 3).
It is our view that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness.
While we have serious doubts about McGurrin disclosing the
claimed enclosing objects and embedded objects alleged by the
examiner, in view of appellants’ explanation of
enclosing/embedded objects in comparison to the parent/child
relationships of McGurrin, even if we assumed, arguendo, that
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007