Appeal No. 2001-2267
Application 08/828,687
using DC++. The examiner notes that Carr teaches an additional
class in which data is passed to and from the desired functions.
Finally, the examiner responds that the admitted prior art
teaches the need for implementing a gateway/common interface, and
Carr teaches programming a gateway with DC++. The examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan to apply
object-oriented programming to implement a gateway/common
interface based on the admitted prior art and Carr [answer, pages
5-9].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 or of any of the claims grouped therewith.
Although we do not agree with many of the arguments made by
appellant in the brief, we do find one of the arguments to be
sufficiently compelling to require that the rejection be
reversed. Specifically, the examiner’s rejection relies on the
“admitted prior art” to provide a fundamental teaching in support
of the rejection. More particularly, the rejection relies on the
admitted prior art as teaching a common interface for two or more
applications and the problems associated with such a common
interface. The examiner relies on Carr to teach a solution to
the problem allegedly recognized by the admitted prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007