Appeal No. 2001-1095
Application No. 08/622,806
independent claims. Appellants argue that appellants do not claim a system that
achieves a bidirectional communication path by passively looking backwards in a
hierarchy, but instead claim a system that actively creates an object to perform the
communication. (See reply brief at page 3.) We agree with appellants and distinguish
the creation of objects for forming a communication path from the use of the hierarchy
to look backwards and determine relationships.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not addressed the language of the
independent claims whereas the examiner has addressed the passive usage of Cowsar
and Ellis of a virtual table and passing pointers, and the language of the independent
claims requires the first and second objects to form and complete a communication
pathway between the parent and child processes. We agree with appellants that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
invention. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims. Since independent claims 9 and 13 contain similar limitations, we
cannot sustain the rejection thereof and their dependent claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007