Ex Parte Endicott et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2003

09033614 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOHN CLARENCE ENDICOTT, STEVEN JAY MUNROE
and ROBERT PETER RESCH
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 7, 9, 11 and 13. Claims 8, 10, 12 and 14 are objected to
for depending upon a rejected claim. Claims 1 through 6 have
been canceled.
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
2
Invention
The invention relates to Object Oriented Programming. See
page 1 of Appellants’ specification. The two fundamental
concepts of Object Oriented Programming are “encapsulation” and
“reusability”. Encapsulation means that information and the
means for using the information are conceptually packaged into
individual entities call “objects.” The objects represent
individual operations or groups of operations that can be
performed by a computer system. The information contained in an
objected is called data and the means used to perform a
particular operation upon the information is called a method.
Reusability means that the objects are made sufficiently generic
so that they can be used by methods of other objects. See page 2
of Appellants’ specification. Objects are also considered to be
members of a particular “class” of objects. See page 3 of
Appellants’ specification. Appellants’ invention is an enhanced
object-oriented mechanism that is used to change a specific
object instance from being a member of one class to being a
member of another class. See pages 26 and 27 of Appellants’
specification as well as figures 10A and 10B.
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
3
Independent claim 7 is representative of Appellants’
invention and is reproduced as follows:
7. A method for modifying an object instance, said object
instance being a member of a first class, said method comprising
the step of:
changing said object instance such that said object instance
is a member of a second class.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Conner et al. (Conner) 5,361,350 Nov. 1, 1994
Rejection at Issue
Claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Conner.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
4
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 703 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants state that claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 generally call
for: 1) an object instance that is a member of a first claims;
and 2) change said object instance such that the object instance
is a member of a second class. Appellants argue that Conner does
not disclose a mechanism that changes an object instance that is
a member of the first class to be a member of a second class.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in relying on Conner’s
disclosure of an initialization for a teaching of modification.
Upon our review of Conner, we note that Conner teaches in
column 28, lines 56 through 68 that a generic class object is
created by initializing a default value at block 720 and then is
initialized for a particular new class. Upon our review of the
reference as a whole we find that Conner’s passage would only
teach to those skilled in the art that a memberless object is
made a member of a new class. However, we fail to find any
teaching in Conner of a method or apparatus for modifying an
object instance, where the object instance is a member of a first
class and than changing said object instance such that said
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
5
object instance is a member of a second class as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Conner.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Steven W. Roth
Dept 917 IBM Corporation
Appeal No. 2002-0276
Application 09/033,614
6
3605 Highway 52 N
Rochester, MN 55901