Ex parte BURCH et al. - Page 3




               Appeal No. 1998-1514                                                                                                  
               Application No. 08/370,963                                                                                            


                       Claims 1 and 2  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                               
               Graham in view of Janis.                                                                                              
                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                             
               appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                                  
               answer (Paper No. 8, mailed Oct. 27, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the                             
               rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 7, filed July 14, 1997) for the appellants’                       
               arguments thereagainst.                                                                                               
                                                             OPINION                                                                 

                       In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                           
               appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                                 
               respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of                             
               our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                                  
                       Appellants describe the operation of shared libraries and the problem which exists                            
               in profiling their operation because the shared libraries remain resident in the operating                            
               environment as opposed to client programs which are loaded, run and unloaded by the                                   
               computer operating system.  (See brief at page 2.)  Appellants argue that Graham does                                 
               not discuss the problem inherent in instrumenting shared libraries.                                                   






                                                                 3                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007