Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
with respect to claim 1. Claims 16-18, 20-26, 29-31, 33-39, and 42-45
depend from one of claims 14, 27, and 40, and we conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims as being anticipated by Blowers for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 14, 27, and 40.
Claim 53 recites, similarly to claim 1, automatically generating a
graphical user interface for the program "wherein the graphical user
interface of the program is independent of the prototyping environment user
interface." As discussed with respect to claim 1, Blowers does not teach or
suggest this limitation. Therefore, we agree that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 53 as being anticipated by Blowers. Claim 54 depends from
claim 53, and we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 54 as
being anticipated by Blowers for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 53.
Claim 55 recites, similarly to claim 1, automatically generating a
program "wherein program execution of the program is independent of
execution of the development environment." As discussed with respect to
claim 1, Blowers does not teach or suggest this limitation. Therefore, we
agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 55 as being anticipated by
Blowers.
Claims 49 and 52, which depend from claims 48 and 51 respectively,
recite "wherein execution of the second program instructions is independent
of execution of" the development environment (or first program instruction
in the case of claim 52). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Blowers does
not teach or suggest this limitation. Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 49 and 52 as being anticipated by
Blowers.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013