Appeal No. 2002-0378
Application No. 08/942,264
Appellants argue that Carroll never performed the step of uploading a set of
object tables along with other steps as recited in claim 1. (See brief at pages 13-16.)
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not addressed the lack of a teaching of
this and other specific steps in the recited method. While we agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the system of
Carroll to incorporate the new and useful object oriented programming taught by
Owens, we find no specific teachings or suggestion of the specific steps recited by
independent claim 1, nor do we find any analysis or convincing line of reasoning by the
examiner of why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform
the recited steps in the manner claimed. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 6, 9,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007