Appeal No. 1997-2055
Application No. 08/175,873
We agree. Nowhere in Haynes is there any discussion of
specifying a new abstract event and creating a new action slot
container
object corresponding thereto at the execution of the two
action objects. Therefore, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 2 over Haynes.
Regarding Hullot, the examiner contends (Office action,
page 5) that Hullot discloses plural actions (such as adding
or subtracting) to be connected and the execution of such
actions in response to the execution of a target variable.
The examiner interprets the actions as the claimed plural
action objects, the target variable as the claimed action slot
container, and the execution of the target variable as the
claimed abstract event. Then, the examiner states (Answer,
page 7) that all actions are connected through the target
variable and that "one can add as many actions as desired to
MyProgram through the variable 'Target.' It is clear that all
actions connected through the Target variable are executed
when triggered."
Appellants (Brief, page 6) assert that Hullot's
"connections between variables and fields within programs are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007