Appeal No. 2005-0523 Page 5
Application No. 10/264,733
to no portion of Miloushev which addresses the recompilation
problem [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 or of any of the other claims rejected on
anticipation for essentially the reasons argued by appellant in
the briefs. As argued by appellant, Miloushev teaches that one
object may invoke directly the services of other objects.
Although this invocation occurs dynamically and does not require
recompiling, the ability of one object to invoke the services of
another object is not the same as using one object in place of
the other object as claimed. The first object in Miloushev
retains control while it is invoking the services of the second
object. The second object interacts with the first object in
Miloushev, but the second object does not take the place of the
first object as claimed. We agree with appellant that the
claimed step of “using said second object with said first client
in place of the first object without recompiling” must be
interpreted such that the second object replace the first object
rather than simply interact with it. We do not agree with the
examiner’s position that the use of DLLs, by itself, teaches the
claimed invention because it fails to account for the replacement
feature of the claims.
We now consider the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Miloushev taken alone. We will not sustain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007