Appeal No. 1999-1452
Application 08/436,830
be prior art to him. In fact, the entire discussion of topic 5.1 beginning at column 1 of
page 101 through the discussion of topic 5.1.3.2 at the second column of page 103 is
most telling, as the examiner emphasizes in the responsive arguments portion of the
answer. There is even an emphasis in this discussion of structural inheritance such as
that depicted in Figures 6a, b. The discussion between the noted pages is concerned
with inserting, deleting, changing inheritances and relationships between parent and
child objects in an object-oriented programming environment utilizing Windows and
graphical user interfaces as an interaction design tool upon object-oriented
programming data structures. We are thus unpersuaded of appellant’ arguments with
respect to independent claim 19 and dependent claim 20. Moreover, no arguments at
all have been presented as to independent claim 24 and its dependent claims in the
brief and reply brief.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18 and
19-27 as separately stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007