Appeal No. 1997-0521
Application No. 08/105,839
unpatentable over Tolin in view of Bowles. Claims 11-15 stand rejected as being “based
on [upon] the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 - 10.” (See answer at page 8.)
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No.15, mailed Jan. 25, 1996), the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed Jun. 12, 1996) and the second supplemental examiner's answer (Paper
No. 19, mailed Oct. 30, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed Aug. 14, 1995), the reply brief (Paper No. 16,
filed Mar. 22, 1996), supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed July 8, 1996) and
second supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed Dec. 6, 1996) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
CLAIMS 1-10
Appellant argues that Tolin does not teach or suggest the use of the language translator for
translation of functional statements in one computer language to functional statements in
another computer language. (See brief at page 4-8.) We agree with appellant. Clearly,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007