Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
Independent claim 7 is representative of Appellants’
invention and is reproduced as follows:
7. A method for modifying an object instance, said object
instance being a member of a first class, said method comprising
the step of:
changing said object instance such that said object instance
is a member of a second class.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Conner et al. (Conner) 5,361,350 Nov. 1, 1994
Rejection at Issue
Claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Conner.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007