Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 15, and 18 through 20 and
reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17.
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 5-7) that instead of generating getter and
setter source code, as recited in each of the independent claims, Chiang
discloses generating an event handler framework and a user manually
entering the getter and setter source code into the framework. The Examiner
asserts (Answer 4) that the generated event handler code is generated source
code. The issue, therefore, is whether Chiang discloses generating getter
and setter source code.
Chiang discloses (paragraph [0010]) generating an event handler
skeleton by receiving input files, identifying tags, attribute names, and
attribute values in the input files. Chiang also discloses (paragraph [0052])
that the web application generator generates source code 610 which
comprises, among other things, the event handler code 620. In other words,
event handler code 620 is source code. However, the question still remains
as to whether the event handler code is getter and setter source code.
The Examiner (Answer 4) points to the get and set codes in paragraph
[0099] as disclosure for generating getter and setter source code. Appellants
explain (Br. 5-7) that the getter and setter source code in paragraph [0099] is
entered by the user, not generated as recited in the claims. Specifically,
Chiang discloses (paragraph [0096]) that the object file
(CostCalculator.java) requires the web developer to write additional source
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013