Appeal No. 2002-1398
Application No. 08/572,474
Our view is the opposite as to independent claims 27, 28 and
30 since, contrary to appellants’ view, these claims do not
require the key from the object creation to be the same key used
for finding/activating. While appellants “strenuously” oppose
this position, appellants point to no specific claim language
which would indicate that, e.g., in claim 30, “returning an
object key” (emphasis added) and “finding or activating an
object, given an object key,” (emphasis added) refers to the same
key. Contrary to appellants’ view, the clear language of claims
27, 28 and 30 does not require the same key.
Thus, appellants’ argument as to this point, regarding
claims 27, 28 and 30, is not persuasive. Since no other
arguments are presented by appellants with regard to these
independent claims, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 27, 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §103. However, it is our
view that the rejection of the instant claims would not be
sustainable if the claims were amended to make it clear that the
key returned at object orientation is the key that is thereafter
used in finding or activating that object.
With regard to claims 4, 8, 15 and 22, appellants refer to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007