Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
Regarding claims 48, 50, and 51, Appellants argue that Blowers does
not teach generating a graphical program automatically.3 (Br. 22;
Reply Br. 8-9.) Instead, Appellants contend that Blowers teaches the
manual selection of icons from tool boxes. (Br. 22; Reply Br. 8-9.)
Appellants also argue that the tree structure of Blowers is not executable.
(Reply Br. 8.) We do not agree.
As the Examiner correctly found, Blowers teaches that a program may
be generated automatically. (Answer 10-12; 23-24; FF 1-2.) The Examiner
found that "Blowers has clearly avoided the user manually inputting the
program and has taught that the user's role is to choose certain functional
operations and parameters associated with certain functions to generate a
program automatically." (Answer 23-24; FF 1.) The Examiner also found
that "Blowers discloses that the task sequencer engine [46] is responsible for
linking functional operations to a tree structure, thereby generating the
program that is represented as the tree structure." (Answer 24; FF 2.) In
addition, with respect to claim 48, the Examiner found that the graphical
program taught by Blowers is interpretable or compilable.4 (Answer 11; FF
2.) We note that the language of claim 48 merely requires the graphical
program to be "interpretable" or "compilable," not "executable" as argued by
Appellants. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
3 Claims 48, 50, and 51 do not recite the limitations of automatically
generating a program that "is operable to execute independently of" the
prototyping application and automatically generating a graphical user
interface that "is operable to receive user input independently of" the
prototyping application as discussed with respect to claim 1.
4 Claims 50 and 51 do not recite this particular limitation.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013