Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
We also will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
While we do not agree with appellants’ argument that
Hastings and Van Dyke constitute non-analogous art with regard
to the instant claimed invention, we do agree that these 2
references, either individually, or in combination, would not
have made the instant claimed subject matter obvious, within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claim 16 specifies an updatable first pointer
in conjunction with each repetition of a retrieving step and
an updatable second pointer in conjunction with each
performance of one of the loading operations. Hastings does
indicate an updating operation wherein an address field of a
relocation table is updated. But, as pointed out by
appellants [principal brief-page 33], “this updating is not
performed in the context of loading the relocatable file into
memory for execution,” as required by instant claim 16.
2We think that those familiar with relocatable object
code and loading same into a computer system memory would have
looked to prior art such as Hastings and Van Dyke, which both
deal with relocatable object code, as relevant teachings and
clearly pertinent to the instant claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007