Appeal 2007-0506
Application 09/998,511
We respectfully disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of
Nishimura as meeting the limitation that the "implementation" of the method
is "defined" in a second program entity which "depends from" a first
program entity. Where the implementation of a function is defined in the
base class, that is where the implementation is defined, not in the subclass,
which merely inherits the function and its definition. The program
instructions implementing the function are in the base class, not in the
subclass. The Examiner's interpretation that the inherited function is
inherently defined to be the same as that defined in the base class, while
creative, is not considered to be a fair and accurate statement.
Nishimura does not disclose that the "implementation" of the method
is "defined" in a second program entity which "depends from" a first
program entity. The implementations of methods in a subclass (second
program entity) are in the base class (first program entity) upon which the
subclass directly or indirectly depends. Accordingly, the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 4, and 7-10 is reversed.
Independent claims 13, 15, 18, 26, 28, and 30 have limitations
corresponding to those discussed in claim 1 and are not anticipated by
Nishimura for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1. The anticipation
rejection of claims 13, 15, 18, 26, 28, and 30, and their dependent claims 17,
20, 22-24, 27, and 29, is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013