Appeal No. 2000-1284
Application No. 08/576,730
its components only a single time. Appellant also argues that
McInerney does not teach the first subprocess (means) because
McInerney uses a compiler to maintain the project component, and
the present invention has nothing to do with a compiler.
Appellant argues that McInerney does not teach the second
subprocess (means) because McInerney does not explain how his
lists are created or that his lists are required by an identified
known component for execution of the application. Appellant
simply argues that the claimed third subprocess (means) is not
taught or suggested by McInerney. Finally, appellant argues that
McInerney does not teach or suggest the fourth subprocess (means)
because McInerney is directed to minimizing compiling and the
present invention has nothing to do with compiling or re-
compiling [brief, pages 4-6].
The examiner responds that appellant’s arguments
regarding the compiler of McInerney are not relevant because
claims 1 and 9 do not preclude the use of a compiler. The
examiner indicates that the first subprocess (means) is met by
the project component of McInerney. The examiner finds that the
second subprocess (means) is met by the compile list of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007