Appeal 2007-0279
Application 10/042,079
Krishna teaches using source code declarations and interfaces while
excluding source code executable statements to create the library stubs. We
find that Krishna’s exclusion of the executable statements, while including
the declarations and interfaces of the first objected-oriented software in
generating the library stubs, amounts to a partial exclusion of references to
the first software. Krishna is devoid of a clear teaching that excludes the
declarations, the interfaces, the executable statements and any other
references to the first object-oriented software. Therefore, it cannot be
properly relied upon to anticipate Appellant’s invention, as set forth in
representative claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner failed to persuade us
that the declarations and interfaces of the first object-oriented software to
create the library stubs to compile codes in the second object-oriented
software, as taught by Krishna, are not references to the first object-oriented
software. After considering the entire record before us, we find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 as being anticipated by
Krishna. We also find for the same reasons that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 7, 10 through 14, 20, 23 through 27, 33, and 36 through 39
as being anticipated by Krishna.
Next, we find that the Examiner improperly rejected dependent claims
2 through 6, 8, 9, 15 through 19, 21, 22, 28 through 32, 34, and 35 as being
unpatentable over Krishna, taken in various combinations with Green and
Evans. We find that neither Green nor Evans was relied upon for the
limitation of removing all references to software in a second object-oriented
software package to generate a compilation interface from a first object-
oriented software package. Further, we find that neither reference teaches
such limitation to cure the deficiencies of Krishna. After considering the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013