Appeal No. 96-1988
Application No. 08/172,290
We reverse.
Independent claim 1 requires that the program created by
the flowchart be a "structured" program and that, in combining
selected flow forms, "only downward flow of control is
required within the flowchart, and no two lines connecting
flow forms cross one another." Independent claims 5 and 14
contain similar language.
We find nothing in the disclosure of Marmelstein which
teaches the claimed "downward flow" and prohibition of
connecting flow lines crossing each other. The examiner’s
position is that "there are inherently predetermined
connection rules applied to the input and output of each basic
block of the structured program in which up-ward logical flow
and crossing logical flows will not be allowed" [principal
answer-page 3]. For his part, appellant disputes the
"inherency" theory of the examiner and points out that the
examiner "has not pointed out where in Marmelstein there is a
suggestion that flow forms be placed in a flowchart such that
control flow is only downward and no two lines connection flow
forms cross each other" [principal brief-page 8]. Appellant
also points out that, if anything, Marmelstein teaches away
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007