Appeal No. 2002-1506
Application 09/219,934
wherein, the at least one object oriented class is flexibly
adaptable, thereby allowing the system to do one or more of
handle different data types and associated behaviors and handle
additional client applications.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Mullins 5,857,197 Jan. 05, 1999
(filed Mar. 20, 1997)
Ludwig et al. (Ludwig) 6,006,230 Dec. 21, 1999
(filed Jan. 29, 1997)
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Mullins. Claims 8, 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Mullins in
view of Ludwig.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007