Appeal No. 2001-2581
Application No. 08/847,124
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ
685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
In the instant case, the examiner applies McGurrin against
claim 12, for example, by contending that McGurrin’s computer
system generates a reference to an enclosing object (parent data
structure) from a reference to an embedded object (current data
structure) that is embedded within the enclosing object, the
enclosing object having an enclosing class (parent class), the
embedded object having an embedded class (associated class to
current data structure), and the embedded class having a data
member (parent pointer). The examiner contends that McGurrin’s
method comprises receiving a reference to the embedded object
(reading the attribute and property values from the current data
structure), and retrieving from the data member of the embedded
object (current data structure) referenced by the received
reference the enclosing object address (parent pointer) (column
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007