Appeal No. 2001-2269
Application No. 08/680,266
specification, page 3, and referred to on page 5 of the reply
brief. We agree with the Appellant that the request to the
object is distinct from implementation after the server
application receives the request and the request is carried
through an implementation. Therefore, we do not agree with the
Examiner's argument that "an implementation of the call to the
object" can be interpreted as creating a request to the object.
Upon our review of Sturges, we find that Sturges is not
directed to distributed object programming but instead is
directed to a dynamic memory management using an operating system
which is not object oriented. Furthermore, we fail to find any
teaching in Sturges of automatically deallocating at least a
portion of the resources after implementation of a call to an
object as recited in Appellant's claims 19-30.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 19-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007