Appeal 2007-0506
Application 09/998,511
method defined in a second program entity in the object-oriented computer
program that is different from and that depends from the first program
entity" (emphasis added). Appellants argue that this limitation requires two
things: (1) execution is halted in response to hitting an implementation of a
method in a second program entity that "depends from" the first program
entity (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3); and (2) the "implementation" must be
"defined" within the second program entity itself, rather than being inherited
from a parent program entity (most clearly argued at Reply Br. 2-4).
The main issue argued is whether Nishimura discloses that the
"implementation" of the method is "defined" in a second program entity
which "depends from" a first program entity. The Examiner's position is:
"[A]n implementation of the method defined in a second program
entity" as claimed, reads on an inherited function (i.e., a function
defined in the second program entity as inherited from the first
program entity) of Nishimura since an inherited function is inherently
defined in the second program entity to be the same as that
defined/identified in the base class (i.e., "first program entity").
(Ans. 10.)
Appellants argue that "[t]he arguments presented by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer are fundamentally premised on the incorrect
assumption that Applicants' claims read on the situation where a breakpoint
is set on a method defined in a parent class and execution is halted when that
method is executed by an object instance of a subclass that has inherited the
method, but where the actual implementation of the method that is hit is
defined in the parent class, but not in the subclass" (Reply Br. 3-4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013