Appeal No. 1997-1654 Page 14
Application No. 08/431,307
Claims 38 and 41-46
Regarding claims 38 and 41-46, the appellants rely on the
arguments advanced for claims 26-28, 31-37, and 47. We
rejected these arguments for the aforementioned reasons. The
pertinent limitations of claims 38 and 41-46 are substantially
similar to those of claims 26-28, 31-37, and 47. Accordingly,
we reject the arguments as applied to claims 26-28, 31-37, and
47 for the same reasons.
Further regarding claims 38 and 41-46, the appellants
make the following argument.
Rosenthal does not state that membership in an
attribute set is frozen once the program begins
running, and the use of a dynamically accessed
database creates the possibility that membership in
a set of attributes could change while the program
runs. By contrast, the Constant Membership Claims
expressly require no change in membership of the set
of overriding attributes during program execution.
(Appeal Br. at 17.)
The examiner replies, “a Rosenthal user need not cause any
‘attribute’ modifications while executing the widget, and a
set of ‘overriding attributes’ thereby left unchanged, or
‘constant’, is sufficient to read upon the claimed invention.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 6.) We agree with examiner.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007