Appeal No. 96-3077
Application No. 08/255,544
With respect to independent claims 26 and 27, Appellant
contends that the internal routing performed by the sending
task in Gammage et al. cannot meet the claimed feature of the
detection of message type independent of the first and second
objects. Appellant’s claim 26 recites
detecting, independent of said first
or second objects, the message type of
said generated message; and
transferring said message between
objects via one of said plurality of
message paths in response to said
detected message type.
In regard to independent claim 29, Appellant reiterates the
contention that Gammage et al. provides no teaching of the
claimed external testing feature. Appellant’s claim 29
recites
testing the message type to determine a
destination object for said message type of
message routing, said testing being performed
external to the generating object;
In response to the Appellant’s arguments with regard to
claims 26, 27, and 29, the Examiner argues (Answer, page 6)
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 26
and 29 (pages 14-15 of the Brief) are not
persuasive, because if as admitted by Appellant
“the routing of Gammage et al is performed by
sending task and is, therefore, not ‘independent
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007