Ex parte COSKUN et al. - Page 6

          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                  
          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          


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007