Appeal No. 2002-0364
Application No. 08/951,812
followed by the development of an initial architecture.’ (RAT-
C++, page 1)” (answer, page 22).
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 36-65 because
the examiner’s rationale is not specific enough to warrant a
prima facie showing of obviousness of the instant claimed subject
matter. While the examiner broadly points to references dealing
with object-oriented code technology (and even cites Martin in
the responsive section of the answer though Martin forms no part
of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103), having much of the same
language as is in the instant claims, the examiner never
specifically points out where, in the references, the very
specific claim limitations are alleged to be taught.
For example, we have reviewed pages 39 and 97 of Rational
Rose, as well as cited Chapters 4 and 6. Yet, we find no
reference to, or teaching of, “creating a reference-based
association relating first and second classes by specifying a
reference attribute in the first class corresponding to the
second class, wherein the reference attribute in the first class
includes a type and cardinality” or of “instantiating one or more
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007