Appeal No. 2000-1284
Application No. 08/576,730
McInerney. The examiner finds that the third subprocess is met
by the recursive procedure in McInerney for identifying
additional components based on the compile list. Finally, the
examiner finds that the fourth subprocess (means) is met by the
interface compile list disclosed by McInerney. The examiner also
explains that McInerney’s teaching of avoiding the listing of
unnecessary components suggests including a component only once
in the created list. The examiner also notes that claim 9 is
broader than claim 1 and does not include the listing of
components only one time [answer, pages 7-12].
We generally agree with the position argued by the
examiner for the reasons explained by the examiner in the answer.
Appellant’s arguments that he does not see how the relevant
portions of McInerney suggest the claimed invention are not
sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. The
examiner is correct that the functions performed in claims 1 and
9 do not preclude the presence of a compiler for implementing
these functions. We also agree with the examiner that the
subprocesses (means) of the claimed invention are met by the tree
structure disclosed by McInerney with the project component at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007