Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
appellants’ claim limitations for storing “data required to
recreate the event”.
With respect to appellants’ argument that there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine the references, the examiner
states “On the contrary, Padawer et al. suggests combining so that
the user can, trace or debug, and verify the accuracy of a
program’s execution.” The examiner contends that the combination
would have a high expectation of success since the events recorded
in Padawer are breakpoints which are described in both references
associated with controlling a program.
The examiner contends that Coplien discloses action objects,
such as the functions move, refresh or create in Figure 5, where
the methods that correspond to these action objects are shown as
“refresh(){…}” etc., or functions illustrated in Figure 4. It is
urged that “Coplien et al. show an action slot in figure 5 for a
class window which defines events, such as, move, refresh and
create, to be performed by either of the XWindow or
SunviewWindow”. The examiner states that Padawer teaches
activation objects. In support of this position, the examiner
asserts that in column 9, lines 40-50, Padawer discloses that
debug commands stored as a record in debug tape 302 can activate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007