Appeal No. 1997-2467 Page 5
Application No. 08/509,753
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants’ argument.
The examiner asserts, "Patton et al teach entering said
object at one of a first entry point to directly invoke said
body in response to execution of the ordinary function call
(column 4, lines 60 - 65) and a second entry point to invoke
said method body in the context of a generic function dispatch
in response to execution of the generic function call (column
4, lines 55 - 60), wherein said first entry point is different
from said second entry point ...." (Examiner's Answer at 4.)
The appellants argue, "the combination of Patton and Keene
neither discloses nor suggests an apparatus or method for
entering a method object at one of two different entry points
when invoking the method object." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
Claims 1-3 and 18 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "entering said method object at one of a first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007