Appeal No. 2001-1095
Application No. 08/622,806
calling application. (Specification at page 3 and brief at page 5.) Appellants argue that
Cowsar fails to teach the various creating operations which access a functions by both
the child and by the parent process to form a communication path between the parent
and the child process. Since both the parent and the child access function to form and
complete a communication path, we find that the language of independent claim 1
adequately supports appellants’ argument regarding bidirectional communication.
(See brief at page 6 and reply at pages 3-5.)
Appellants argue that the examiner has maintained that Cowsar teaches an
object for forming a communication path (pointers and linked list) between a parent and
child process, but appellants find no support in the cited figures and sections of
Cowsar. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants. While Cowsar appears to
designate relationships and use pointers, we find no creation of objects by first and
second processes to form and complete a communication path between the parent and
child processes.
The examiner maintains that “Cowsar in combination with Ellis” teach various
functions (see brief at pages 8-9) and that the hierarchy is created of object-oriented
objects and that forward and backward traversal of the hierarchical structure creates a
path between the parent object, child object and virtual function tables. While the path
may be designated, we do not find that this path would necessarily or obviously be a
bidirectional communication path between the two processes as recited in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007