Appeal No. 1999-1452
Application 08/436,830
suboperations for Run and Options of corresponding Figures 4 and 5 are put together
in Figure 7 utilizing additionally the source file N as a separate window to be added
thereto. The examiner’s reliance upon a CALL function in this reference is probably
over emphasized by the examiner, while still illustrating that the called function in Figure
6 may be associated in a single window in Figure 7 with its source file 2. Based on the
teachings of Pazel, it clearly would have been obvious to the artisan to have utilized the
well knownl data structures of the admitted prior art relating to object oriented
programming to depict panels or separate windows as well of particular objects of
interest, their respective parent and children objects of the type broadly set forth in
claims 8 and 9 on appeal. We are therefore unpersuaded of appellant’s arguments in
the brief and reply brief as to these claims. Finally, the features of independent claim
15 have already been addressed with respect to our consideration of earlier claims.
We turn to the rejection of claims 19-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying upon the
combined teachings and showings in Frid-Nielsen in view of Myers. Our study of these
references is consistent with the examiner’s views expressed in the statement of the
rejection portion of the answer as well as the responsive arguments portion of it. This
latter section of the answer appears to us to directly address the arguments raised by
appellant at page 11 of the brief. The examiner admits, and we agree, that Frid-Nielsen
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007