Appeal No. 1997-2467 Page 7
Application No. 08/509,753
information field in response to execution of the generic
function call ....” Further similarly, claims 15-17 specify
in pertinent part the following limitations: “a processor for
invoking said method object in response to entering said
method object at one of a first entry point and a second entry
point, wherein said first entry point is different from said
second entry point.” Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 11-18
require entering a method object at one of two different entry
points when invoking the object.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. Patton teaches
that “objects are provided with a uniform structure so that
all objects can be indifferently executed, either directly or
indirectly. Objects of different types are still uniformly
structured. Each comprises at least a prologue address and a
body. These two parts are contiguous in memory. The prologue
address addresses a prologue which describes execution of the
object. The body is data.” Col. 1, ll. 62-68. Although the
reference discloses an object that can be executed directly
and executed indirectly, the two types of executions do not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007