Appeal 2007-0279
Application 10/042,079
entire record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 2 through 6, 8, 9, 15 through 19, 21, 22, 28 through 32, 34,
and 35 as being unpatentable over Krishna, taken in various combinations
with Green and Evans.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Krishna does not anticipate the claimed
invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) when Krishna teaches using
declarations and interfaces of a first object-oriented software program while
excluding executable statements of the first object-oriented software to
create library stubs to generate an interface to compile a second object-
oriented software program. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the present invention, would not have found that Krishna, taken in
various combinations with Green and Evans renders the claimed invention
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7, 10 through
14, 20, 23 through 27, 33, and 36 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as
being anticipated by Krishna. We also reverse the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 2 through 6, 8, 9, 15 through 19, 21, 22, 28 through 32, 34, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishna, taken in
various combinations with Green and Evans.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013