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