Appeal No. 2000-1704
Application No. 08/484,999
because it requires that a function requiring a compiled value be
used before the compiled version is available. Appellants also
argue that the IBM Design Guide teaches away from the claimed
invention because it provides its own techniques for maintaining
compatibility between versions of an object server. Finally,
appellants argue that there is no support within the applied prior
art for the examiner’s proposed motivation for combining the
references [brief, pages 6-9]. With respect to claim 24,
appellants argue that the applied prior art lacks any teaching that
would suggest the recited compiler option having the recited
operation [id., page 15].
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner responds
that the IBM Model Guide is both a development system and a run-
time environment. The examiner asserts that the artisan would
recognize that version management is an issue at both compile time
and at run time, and therefore, would have been motivated to apply
this teaching of the IBM Model Guide to the IBM Design Guide. The
examiner also responds that he is only relying on limited teachings
of the references [answer, pages 11-13]. With respect to
independent claim 24, the examiner notes that he is relying on the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to meet the claimed
compiler option [id., page 15].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007