Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
to the examiner’s position, cannot disclose an activation object
because an activation object requires context and an action slot
according to appellants’ definition of the term. Accordingly,
even if there existed some motivation or suggestion to combine the
teachings of Coplien and Padawer, the subject matter of the claims
would not have been met by the combination.
Although we will not sustain the rejection of the claims, the
examiner’s position that Padawer is analogous prior art because
both Coplien and Padawer relate to debugging computer programs is
reasonable and persuasive. Appellants have submitted no evidence
to rebut the examiner’s rationale and in support of its position
that command-line programming techniques are not reasonably
pertinent to solving problems arising in object-oriented
programming. Relevant prior art includes that reasonably
pertinent to the particular
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007