Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 703 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants state that claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 generally call
for: 1) an object instance that is a member of a first claims;
and 2) change said object instance such that the object instance
is a member of a second class. Appellants argue that Conner does
not disclose a mechanism that changes an object instance that is
a member of the first class to be a member of a second class.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in relying on Conner’s
disclosure of an initialization for a teaching of modification.
Upon our review of Conner, we note that Conner teaches in
column 28, lines 56 through 68 that a generic class object is
created by initializing a default value at block 720 and then is
initialized for a particular new class. Upon our review of the
reference as a whole we find that Conner’s passage would only
teach to those skilled in the art that a memberless object is
made a member of a new class. However, we fail to find any
teaching in Conner of a method or apparatus for modifying an
object instance, where the object instance is a member of a first
class and than changing said object instance such that said
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007