Appeal No. 1997-2658
Application No. 08/478,974
(F) displaying said optimization device for said section
of code.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Van Dyke et al. (Van Dyke) 5,175,856 Dec. 29,
1992
Spix et al. (Spix) 5,179,702 Jan. 12,
1993
O’Hair 5,187,789 Feb. 16,
1993
Claims 1-41 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers O’Hair in view
of Spix with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16,
18-22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 35-41, and adding Van Dyke
to the basic combination with respect to claims 4, 6, 8, 11,
13, 17, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, and 34. 1
1At page 1 of the Reply Brief, Appellants call attention
to the misspelling of “critical” at line 5 of claim 39. We
also point out that “critical” is misspelled at claim 40, line
3 and claim 41, lines 5 and 7.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007