Appeal No. 2002-0596
Application No. 08/763,135
claim 1 does not explicitly recite an improvement in performance. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the broad allegation that Johnson and Cobb teach using a
dynamic linked library (DLL) does not provide an adequate basis, in itself to establish
an obviousness rejection. (See brief at pages 11-12.) We agree with appellant. The
examiner maintains that the limitations have not been ignored and that Johnson
teaches that a DLL is demand loaded by an intermediate DLL and Cobb teaches that a
DLL can selectively load a DLL if it is unprocessed in order to enhance performance
and the examiner refers back to the prior responses. (See answer at page 10.) We
disagree with the examiner as discussed above and do not find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention, and we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Claims 10 and
25 contain similar limitations concerning the tracing and examining steps/means.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 25 and their
dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18,
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007