Appeal No. 1999-1452
Application 08/436,830
appellant’s arguments in the brief, that Pazel does not teach changing programming
functions or editing them in a specific sense, but he only does so in a general sense.
Therefore, appellant’s focus in the arguments portion of the brief on the alleged
deficiencies with respect to object-oriented programming and Pazel are misplaced. On
the other hand, Berry teaches one specific editing or modifying function by the use of
the linking graphical user interface. The figures illustrate the manner in which this is
done.
The data file structure clause of claim 1 on appeal (and other independent claims
on appeal) relate to conventional object-oriented programming data structures anyway
that were well known in the art. In their own way both Berry and Pazel teach graphical
user interfaces of the type broadly claimed to allow the user to select visually displayed
objects and to therefore modify them either according to the specific teachings of Berry
or the more general editing teachings of Pazel. The concept of operating upon
ancestor and descendant objects of claim 1 on appeal, for example, has been
established in the context of object-oriented programming from the admitted prior art as
well as the object-oriented programming teachings of Berry. The use of the particular
graphical user interface in Berry for linking displayed objects for a very specific purpose
of iteration is consistent with the generalized editing/program debugging teachings of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007