Appeal No. 2001-2269
Application No. 08/680,266
and Sturges, the Examiner relies on Sturges to teach
"automatically deallocating at least a portion of the resources
after implementation of the call to the object" as recited in
Appellant's independent claims 19 and 27. In response, Appellant
argues that Sturges does not teach "automatically deallocating"
because all of the procedures disclosed in Sturges in regard to
allocating memory blocks in the operating system must be
requested by the requestor. See pages 7 and 8 of Appellant's
brief. In addition, Appellant argues that Sturges is not
directed to object oriented programming and thereby Sturges fails
to teach "automatically deallocating at least a portion of the
resources after implementation of the call to the object" as
required by Appellant's claims. See page 8 of Appellant's brief.
In response, the Examiner argues that Sturges teaches
dynamic memory services which include a deallocation procedure or
function call. The Examiner argues that the invocation of the
deallocation procedure results in the deallocation of the
previously used memory resources. The Examiner points us to
column 7, lines 4-17, and column 8, lines 20-67 of Sturges. The
Examiner points out that "an implementation of the call to the
object" can be interpreted as a creating request to the object.
See pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner's answer. The Examiner also
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007