Appeal No. 2000-2283
Application No. 08/497,287
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection assert a failure by the Examiner to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art.
After careful review of the applied Sandage and Osisek references,
in light of the arguments of record, we are in general agreement
with Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Briefs.
Initially, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’
assertion (Brief, pages 8 and 9; Reply Brief, pages 4 and 5) that,
unlike the present invention, the calling program in Sandage does
not store information in any location, let alone global state
information in a global state store as claimed. We also agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not shown how the called program
in Sandage saves information in any store, let alone a global state
store, and eventually restores the saved information to the store
from which it was obtained, all features which appear in each of
the appealed independent claims. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Sandage coincides with that of Appellants, i.e.,
while Sandage discloses the passing of information between calling
and called programs, there is no disclosure of the claimed features
which detail the operation of the called program when it is called
and when it returns control to the calling program.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007