Appeal No. 2003-1236
Application No. 09/093,657
objects, the Operator Interface for allowing a Developer to
change the objects to provide a program specification, and the
Generator for generating source code for the computer system
(col. 2, lines 56-63). This does not represent converting a
fourth generation language and instead, describes the generation
of source code as a result of changes to the program objects.
Additionally, the Examiner’s view of the fourth generation
language and the object-oriented language based on the dictionary
definition is not persuasive since the Examiner’s analysis is
predicated on the assumption that if the same property is present
in two different things, those things are the same. Here, the
two “nonprocedural” entities, a fourth generation language and an
object-oriented language, are not necessarily the same.
Furthermore, although Garloff describes determining “how to
reference the object and Method” instead of the more traditional
Macro Expansion or Template means (col. 5, lines 35-42), defining
“the functions to be performed” (col. 5, lines 48-49) and a
series of statements which “are parsed into one or more
expressions” (col. 10, lines 38-41), there is nothing in the
reference that performs the claimed functions. In fact, it
appears that the Examiner relies on Garloff since the claimed
terms “specification,” “template” or “parsed,” which may be
looked up by performing a keyword search, are present in the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007