Ex parte COSKUN et al. - Page 8

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

          to the examiner’s position, cannot disclose an activation object            
          because an activation object requires context and an action slot            
          according to appellants’ definition of the term.  Accordingly,              
          even if there existed some motivation or suggestion to combine the          
          teachings of Coplien and Padawer, the subject matter of the claims          
          would not have been met by the combination.                                 
          Although we will not sustain the rejection of the claims, the               
          examiner’s position that Padawer is analogous prior art because             
          both Coplien and Padawer relate to debugging computer programs is           
          reasonable and persuasive.  Appellants have submitted no evidence           
          to rebut the examiner’s rationale and in support of its position            
          that command-line programming techniques are not reasonably                 
          pertinent to solving problems arising in object-oriented                    
          programming.  Relevant prior art includes that reasonably                   
          pertinent to the particular                                                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007