Appeal No. 1997-4219
Application No. 08/315,745
OPINION
We will reverse both rejections of claims 1, 2, 7 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument that the
references are directed to translations of data types rather
than conversion from one program language to another. Both
references appear to teach a conversion from one programming
language to another. For example, in Pham, the sending of
messages and files from an application program in a first
computer language to an application program in a second
computer language [see Pham’s abstract] sounds like a
conversion from one computer language to another. In Jack,
although the reference is primarily concerned with data
structure format conversion, column 3, lines 63-65, states
that “[a]lternatively, the command source 12 may comprise an
applications program that requires a conversion from a source
format to a target format.”
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections because there are other features of the claimed
invention which, in our view, are not disclosed or made
obvious by the applied references. More specifically, each of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007