Appeal No. 2002-1398
Application No. 08/572,474
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)].
With regard to independent claims 27 and 30, the examiner
cites COSS/CORBA as teaching an object oriented information
handling system with an improved object adapter having an
instance manager for managing all aspects of physical and logical
life cycles of an object, being responsive to a request, finding
or activating a particular object, requesting creation of a new
object, and returning an object key, i.e., an object reference
including a component of id. The examiner particularly cites
pages 36, 40-43, 147-151 and 154 of CORBA and pages 74-82 of
COSS.
The examiner recognizes that COSS/CORBA does not explicitly
teach (1) one or more processors, storage system, one or more I/O
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007