Appeal No. 1999-1563
Application 08/509,619
After careful review of the evidence before us, we will
not sustain the rejections.
Appellants assert that in regard to all the independent9
claims the examiner has failed to establish that certain10
given claim elements and limitations correspond to particular
aspects of Lemon. In particular, Appellants point to the
language in the last subparagraph of claim 2 which reads:
"said core function being designed such that
said core function is not to be subject to
modification by a consumer of said framework
mechanism, said extensible function being designed
such that said extensible function can be customized
and extended by said consumer".
In general, Appellants then argue that the passages of
Lemon cited by the Examiner show that Lemon teaches only
extensible functions and does not describe functions that are
designed not to be subject to change.
Specifically, Appellants then argue that column 15, line
59 through column 16, line 9 of Lemon simply describe how a
9Brief, page 5.
10Claims 2, 8, 14, 20 and 26.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007