Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
the execution events for debugging a program as a re-execute
function, and that column 4, lines 12-17 and lines 27-32, shows
the record structure.
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained.
The examiner’s position that Padawer suggests combining the
references “so that the user can, trace or debug, and verify the
accuracy of a program’s execution" is not persuasive. Coplien
teaches debugging and verifying the accuracy of a program
execution (column 1, lines 42-44). Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have combined Padawer with Coplien so that the
user of Coplien can “trace or debug, and verify the accuracy of a
program’s execution” because Coplien teaches debugging and
verifying.
Furthermore, although we agree with the examiner that Coplien
teaches action objects and action slots, we agree with appellants
that Padawer does not disclose or suggest activation objects.
It is clear that Coplien is concerned with object-oriented
programs (column 3, lines 3-10) and discusses objects (column 5,
lines 61-64 and column 8, lines 57-68). In discussing related art
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007