Appeal 2007-0279
Application 10/042,079
removing all references to software that is defined in a second object-
oriented software package from said public entities included in each of said
public classes;
generating an equivalent public class for each of said identified public
classes, said equivalent public class including equivalent public entities that
include no references to said software defined in said second object-oriented
software package;
compiling each of said equivalent public classes; and
generating a compilation interface for said first object-oriented
software package including each of said compiled equivalent public classes.
Appellant contends that claims 1, 7, 10 through 14, 20, 23 through 27,
33, and 36 through 39 are not anticipated by Krishna.1 Particularly,
Appellant contends that Krishna does not fairly teach or disclose the feature
of removing all references to a software that is defined in a second object-
oriented package, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 11).
The Examiner contends that Krishna teaches the claimed limitation of
removing all references to a software that is defined in a second object-
oriented package as excluding source code executable statements during the
creation of library stubs. (Answer 5). The Examiner then concludes that
Krishna anticipates claims 1, 7, 10 through 14, 20, 23 through 27, 33, and 36
through 39. Additionally, the Examiner concludes that Krishna, taken in
various combinations with Green and Evans, renders claims 2 through 6, 8,
9, 15 through 19, 21, 22, 28 through 32, 34, and 35 unpatentable.
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant
submitted in the Appeal Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013