Appeal No. 2002-0364
Application No. 08/951,812
element of the instant claims is taught by Martin. Since, in our
view, the examiner has not successfully done this, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 36-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The examiner also rejects all of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Rational Rose in view of programming
language C++.
Using independent claim 36, again, as an example, the
examiner cites chapters 4 and 6, pages 39 and 97, of Rational
Rose for a teaching of element a of the claim, pages 19 and 56 of
C++ for the teaching of element b (instantiating) and Rational
Rose, page 46 and C++, pages 19, 53 and 56 for a teaching of
element c.
The examiner contends that while Rational Rose anticipates
the limitations of instantiating objects and other runtime
behavior, it does not actually perform the runtime operations.
Rather, it is C++ that actually performs the runtime limitations.
Thus, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
combine the teachings of the product Rational Rose C++ version
4.0 with the compiler C++ because in software development the
'. . . process begins with requirements definition and analysis,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007