Ex parte COSKUN et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-4128                                                        
          Application 08/354,699                                                      


          A method in a data processing system for debugging an object                
          from a plurality of objects forming an application in an object             
          oriented system utilizing a graphic user interface, wherein a               
          number of the plurality of objects each includes at least one               
          action slot, each action slot containing at least one action                
          object, the method comprising the data processing system                    
          implemented steps of:                                                       
          storing each action object within an action slot in an                      
          activation object in response to an event associated with the               
          action slot generated by a user utilizing the graphic user                  
          interface; and                                                              
          storing data sent to each action object in the activation                   
          object, the data being data required to recreate the event,                 
          wherein action objects responsive to the event may be debugged.             
          The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                   
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Coplien et al. (Coplien)         5,093,914            Mar. 03,              
          1992                                                                        
          Padawer et al. (Padawer)         5,124,989            Jun. 23,              
          1992        The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
          103 as being unpatentable over Coplien in view of Padawer.                  
          The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants                 
          with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in           
          the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner’s answer (Paper          
          No. 14), and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13).                          
          Appellants’ Invention                                                       




                                            2                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007