Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 4
Application No. 08/657,510
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-14.
• claims 15-19.
A. CLAIMS 1-5, 7, 8, AND 10-14
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Rodens
teaches . . . [a] second subprocess for simultaneously displaying (left pane) a
representation of the application under development (display classes in the application,
page 1, last line - page 2, line 1)," (Examiner's Answer at 4), but admits "Rodens . . .
does not teach that . . . the representation of the application under development in the
second subprocess is a graphical representation. . . ." (Id. at 4-5.) He further asserts,
"Xu teaches visual application development environment (AppBuilder 214 XuView class
library 220 in particular), wherein . . . the representation of the application under
development (general purpose applications/network analysis and modeling applications,
col. 1, lines 59-62, col. 4, line 36-40) is a graphical representation (graphical
representation, col. 7, lines 17-18). . . ." (Id. at 5.) The appellants argue, "[n]etworks
have been graphically modeled for years; networks are by no means the same things as
applications." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007