Ex Parte PEKOWSKI - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2002-0596                                                                              
            Application No. 08/763,135                                                                        



                   Appellant's invention relates to an apparatus and method for demand load                   
            analysis.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of                     
            exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                                     
                   1.    A method, implemented in an information handling system, for                         
                   selecting one or more dynamic link libraries (DLLs), utilized in an                        
                   application program, to be demand loaded, said method comprising the                       
                   steps of:                                                                                  
                         identifying a DLL referenced by the application program;                             
                         tracing outputs from the DLL;                                                        
                         examining the traced output of the DLL to determine whether the                      
                   DLL was executed; and                                                                      
                         selecting the DLL to be demand loaded if the DLL was not                             
                   executed.                                                                                  
                   The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed              
            claims are as follows:                                                                            
            Cobb                             5,835,749                       Nov. 10, 1998                    
                                                                       (filed May 5, 1995)                    
            Johnson et al. (Johnson)         5,878,384                       Mar. 02, 1999                    
            (filed Mar. 29, 1996)                                                                             
                   Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                 
            being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Cobb.                                                  


                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and              
            appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's               
                                                      2                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007