Appeal No. 2000-2283
Application No. 08/497,287
C. the called program saving the calling program global
information contained in the global state store in the called
program’s virtual machine after being called by the calling
program, the called program further conditioning the global
state information in the global state store to a called
program global state and performing predetermined called
program processing operations, and thereafter restoring the
saved calling program global state to the global state
information store and returning control to the calling
program.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Fukuoka 5,349,680 Sep. 20, 1994
Sandage et al. (Sandage) 5,414,848 May 09, 1995
Osisek 5,555,385 Sep. 10, 1996
(filed Oct. 27, 1993)
Claims 1-30 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Sandage in view of
Osisek with respect to claims 1, 7, 13, 19, and 25, and adds
Fukuoka to the basic combination with respect to claims 2-6, 8-12,
14-18, 20-24, and 26-30.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 7, 1999 (Paper No. 17). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 19, 2000 (Paper No. 19), a
Reply Brief was filed March 21, 2000 (Paper No. 20), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated July 3,
2000 (Paper No. 21).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007