Appeal No. 2005-1860
Application No. 09/754,890
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22-27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45
and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Detlefs and Chan.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31,
32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Detlefs, Chan and
Rickel.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Detlefs for teaching a method of
verifying with static checking that converts the program into a
logical equation except for the claimed step of inserting flow
control labels (answer, page 4). The Examiner further relies on
Chan for teaching markers and scalars as the claimed “flow
control labels” for identifying conditional branch points and
takes the position that Detlefs’ counter example traces the
source of the error while Chan’s markers and scalars identify
paths of execution (answer, page 6). In order to justify the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007