Appeal No. 2003-1895
Application 08/819,536
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant argues that neither Smith nor Biliris shows
that a class specification occurs in an object catalog. See
page 4 and page 6 of Appellant’s reply brief.
We note that claim 1 recites “an object catalog
containing for each class type a class specification that
includes one or more attributes and member functions.” We also
note that claim 3 recites “maintaining an object catalog that
contains a class specification for each data collection, each
class specification containing a description of each of the
number of data items of such data collection.” We finally note
that claim 6 recites “maintain[ing] an object catalog that
contains a class specification for each data collection, each
class specification containing a description of each of the
number of data items of the collection.”
The Examiner states that although Smith and Biliris do
not show that class specification occurs in an object catalog,
they must be located in order to form the use instances. See
page 3 of the Examiner’s answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007