Appeal No. 2004-0933
Application 09/256,680
directories (since we are unaware of any modern computer system
that does not), there is simply no evidence or reason to believe
Pongracz would trace back nested directories to find a target
directory. Pongracz makes no mention of directories, nested
directories, or target directories for applications or filenames.
Even if Pongracz taught a need for finding target directories,
the examiner has not shown that tracing nested directories is the
only available method. The examiner's finding of inherency is
without factual basis. Thus, Pongracz does not teach the second
step of claim 1.
We find that Pongracz does not teach "creating a linked list
of application components installed on the computer system" and
"tracing back nested directories to find a target directory for
each application component in the linked list" as recited in
claim 1. Therefore, it is not necessary to address the last
limitation of "receiving a request to find a selected application
from a calling module." The rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-8 is reversed. Independent claim 9 contains
the same limitations of claim 1 plus additional limitations.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent
claims 10-14 must also be reversed. Independent claim 15 recites
a computer readable media containing program instructions for
- 10 -10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007