Appeal No. 1999-1890
Application No. 08/566,618
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Schmitter and
Ellis.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 8,
mailed October 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 7, filed July 22, 1998) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 18.
The examiner (Answer, page 4) combines Schmitter with
AAPA, asserting that Schmitter teaches a means for searching a
method for an object in an object-oriented environment.
Although the rejection is unclear as to which limitations are
considered lacking from AAPA, we assume that the examiner has
applied Schmitter to meet the step of calling a dispatcher
from the proxy class object for searching a method for said
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007