Appeal No. 1999-1452
Application 08/436,830
further in view of Pazel and Berry. In the second rejection, the examiner relies upon the
combination of teachings and showings in Frid-Nielsen in view of Myers to reject claims
19-27.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, we sustain the
rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as embellished by the
following.
As established by the examiner in the rejection, the starting point is the admitted
prior art in the specification identified earlier. The basic underpinnings of object
oriented programming (OOP) are established in these admitted prior art considerations
of appellant. We do not, however, agree with appellant’s view that Berry is not directed
to OOP. Even the initial discussion in the abstract of the source object-target object
interplay is suggestive of OOP. The examiner’s reliance on Figure 7 (to which we
would add Figure 8) to indicate that object-oriented programming is generally taught in
this reference is significant since together they disclose the use of source objects,
source handles, target objects, target handles, properties, etc., all of which are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007