Appeal No. 2003-1236
Application No. 09/093,657
OPINION
Appellant argues that Garloff’s “program specification,” as
described in Col. 2, lines 49-63, is not written in a fourth
generation language and is instead, written in an object-oriented
language (brief, page 4). Appellant further points to “macro
expansion” and “template” as separate disclosed prior art
techniques and argues that they cannot be part of or be combined
with the invention disclosed in Garloff (brief, page 6).
Appellant further contends that the cited sections related to
Figures 1A, 1B and 1C provide no teaching related to mapping an
object oriented model to code templates and specifically teach
(col. 5, lines 34-46) against using the more traditional
“template means of code generation” (id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the claims do not require converting the fourth generation
language, but only a fourth generation language specification
which is taught by Garloff (col. 4, lines 44-50) as converting
“the developers’ specification” (answer, page 7). The Examiner
further equates the element “Fully Inherited View of Objects,” in
Figure 1 of Garloff, with the claimed object-oriented model of
the specification since the “specifications” of Garloff “has
means of 4GL specification based on the dictionary’s definition
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007