Appeal 2007-0226
Application 09/823,866
Appellants argue that the Examiner's "statement regarding
combination and alleged motivation does not address the issue of limiting
translation from one view to another if the at least two objects are address
classes, as specifically recited in each of the subject pending claims"
(Br. 13). Appellants also argue that since Schmidt already provides
bi-directional interoperability and there is no reason to add it (id.).
The Examiner's Answer does not respond to these arguments.
We will not sustain the rejection. The Examiner has not shown
translation of "address classes" from one view to another. The rejection
concludes that "it would have been obvious to also represent address related
functions by corresponding objects/classes" (Final Rejection 4) and then
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide translation. It is not
clear that Foody discloses translation from one view to another, but, if so,
there appears to be no reason why one skilled in the art would have had a
reason to make such modifications to provide bi-directional interoperability.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 is reversed.
It is not clear that the limitation that "the at least two objects are
address classes" in the instant claims is accurate. The Specification
describes that if there are no exported classes, "[t]he use of objects that
address classes must then employ some form of translation from one view to
another" (page 12, ll. 23-24). This seems to say that "objects address
classes" ("address" used as a verb) rather than "objects are address classes"
("address" used as an adjective). Rather than enter a new ground of
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013