Ex parte MATHENY et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-2882                                                          
          Application No. 07/996,775                                                  


          (a) encapsulating status information and logic in the command               
          object for determining at least one menu item’s state;                      
          (b) creating at least one menu item from a data structure in                
          the command object;                                                         
          (c) initializing the at least one menu item by updating the                 
          status information in the command object determinative of at                
          least one menu item’s state; and                                            
          (d) determining a system’s status and updating the at least                 
          one menu item’s status information in the command object when               
          the at least one menu item is selected from a menu.                         
                                                                                     
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Franz, Object-Oriented Programming Featuring Actor, Chapters                
          1, 2 and 19 through 22 (Glenview, ILL, Scott, Foresman and                  
          Company, 1990).                                                             
          Khoshafian et al. (Khoshafian), Intelligent Offices Object-                 
          Oriented Multi-Media Information Management in Client/Server                
          Architectures, pp. 235-304 (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,              
          1992).                                                                      
               Claims 1 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Khoshafian in view of Franz.                     
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 26 is                    
          reversed because we are not convinced by the examiner’s                     
          reasoning (Answer, pages 3 through 18) that the claimed                     

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007