Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
prima facie case. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
In response to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection,
Appellants have offered several arguments in support of their
contention that Chan fails to teach or suggest numerous features
of appealed claim 30. Initially, Appellants contend (Brief, page
6) that Chan’s HPcode-Plus object file, which the Examiner has
asserted corresponds to the claimed “abstract object program,” is
never executed by an actual physical machine nor translated into
a machine program in binary format for execution by a second
computer.
After careful review of the Chan reference in light of the
arguments of record, however, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. In our view,
regardless of the correctness of Appellants’ assertion that
Chan’s HPcode-Plus program is executed only by a virtual machine,
there is no requirement in claim 30 that the abstract object
program is executed by a physical machine. Further, as pointed
out by the Examiner (Answer, page 5), there is a clear disclosure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007