Ex parte ERICKSON et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 1998

08077348 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 14, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CHARLES R. ERICKSON
AND ROGER H. SESSIONS
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application 08/077,3481
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 8.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system
operating in an object oriented programming environment for
storing and restoring object persistent attribute data to and
from a persistent storage medium.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A system for storing data for a selected object to a
persistent medium in an object oriented computer system also
having a memory, a processor, and operator interaction means,
wherein data resides in system objects in said memory, and
wherein said data is manipulated by processing methods associated
with said object, the system comprising:
attribute extraction means for determining a number, names,
and types of attributes defined for said selected object, said
attribute extraction means being responsive to a data storage
request;
method construction means for constructing a method
invocation request to get attribute values for the attributes
extracted by said attribute extraction means, said method
construction being responsive to said data storage request;
data formatting means for formatting said attribute names,
types and values for storage to said persistent medium; and
data restoration means for restoring said attributes to a
restored object instance.
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Abraham et al. (Abraham) 5,291,593 Mar. 1, 1994
(filed Oct. 24, 1990)
Filepp et al. (Filepp) 5,347,632 Sept. 13, 1994
(filed July 28, 1989)
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Abraham in view of Filepp.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 3) that Abraham’s
system includes:
an object oriented computer system having a memory
(112) for storing data objects;
a processor (114) for manipulating data objects;
operator interaction means (116).
Although data 214 (Figure 2) represent various attributes
(e.g., number, names and types) of the object 202 (column 2,
lines 8 through 11 and column 5, lines 1 through 16), and “Object
Reference 300 is likely to be a data attribute within some other
persistent object that has saved the object ID” (column 7, lines
51 through 53), the examiner has not demonstrated how the
“attribute extraction means (300)” (Answer, page 3) in Abraham is
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
4
“responsive to a data storage request” as required by claim 1.
The “method construction means” in claim 1 is likewise
dependent upon the “data storage request.” The examiner has not
discussed such a request.
With respect to the “data formatting means” in claim 1, the
examiner has turned to Filepp to show formatting of attributes
(Answer, pages 3 and 4). In Abraham, the “Object Reference 300
is . . . a data attribute within some other persistent object”
(column 7, lines 51 through 53), and the class ID 340 within
Object Reference 300 “will indicate whether the class of the
object is persistent, and consequently, whether or not the object
might be stored persistently on a database 134” (column 8, lines
10 through 13). Thus, a persistent object will be stored on
persistent database 134 when the class of the object is
persistent. It is assumed that the attribute data of the
persistent object has to be formatted in some form when it is
stored on the database. If so, then the teachings of Filepp are
redundant to teachings and suggestions that are inherently a part
of Abraham.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), the Object
Manager (Figure 4) in Abraham is a “data restoration means”
(column 8 and column 9, lines 26 through 33). The examiner’s
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “said repository”2
in claim 7.
5
contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, none of the
functions of the Office Manager includes “restoring said
attributes to a restored object instance” as set forth in claim
1.
In summary, we agree with the appellants’ arguments (Brief,
pages 6 and 7) that Abraham does not disclose the claimed
“attribute extraction means,” “method construction means,” and
“data restoration means.” The obviousness rejection of claim 1
and the claims that depend therefrom is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8 is reversed
because the examiner has not come to grips with the accessing of
a “repository” for persistent attributes, and the above-noted2
“restoring” of persistent object data.
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2621
Application No. 08/077,348
7
David A. Mims, Jr.
IBM CORPORATION
Intellectual Property
Law Department 923/815-4054
11400 Burnet Road
Austin, TEXAS 78758