Appeal No. 2002-0700
Application No. 09/145,102
interpretation of Burke in reading it too broadly (Appeal Brief,
page 4, lines 12-14). The appellant also urges that claim
limitations are overlooked. (Appeal Brief, page 4, line 21-page
5, line 16). As we find this last point persuasive, we reverse.
Initially, we note that Shaughnessy is directed to a system
and method for creating and executing programs in a database
environment (Column 1, lines 15-21). It uses Java bytecodes
implemented on a virtual machine (column 1, lines 58-61) which are
stored in “class files.” A class in Java is a software construct
which defines instance variables and methods. (column 2, lines 20-
35). Classes of objects communicate back and forth with each
other and process messages (Column 2, lines 48-57).
Both the examiner (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 16-18)
and the appellant (Brief, page 4, line 25 – page 5, line 2) are in
agreement that Shaughnessy does not teach the priority in which
the class objects should be initialized.
The examiner, somewhat nebulously, asserts that Burke
“teaches priority of a user-defined class object” (Examiner’s
Answer, page 4, line 18). The examiner reasons that the
programmer codes rules, and there are well-known matching
algorithms which produce a priority rule. (Examiner’s Answer, page
5, lines 1-5).
While this may be true, and it may even be obvious to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007