Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. In addition, we have sua
sponte set forth new grounds of rejection for claims 1-15, 40, 41, and 43-56
under 36 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claims 1-15, 38, and 40, 41, and 43-60
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15, 38, 40, 41,
and 43-60 as being anticipated by Levine. Since Appellant’s arguments with
respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which
stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because it is the broadest independent
claim from this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that Levine does not disclose the claimed step of
“reordering components of the software module to remove at least some of
the backward references” (Br. 10, Claim 1). In particular, Appellant argues
that Levine does not describe a method of placing a section header of an
exemplary software module in a more convenient location to eliminate the
need for a link/loader to transition back-and-forth within the software
module during the linking process. Appellant further argues that the sorting,
or reordering, performed by the Levine reference is of extracted symbols and
just allows for the rearrangement of a symbol directory within an archive
library. Appellant concludes that reordering extracted symbols is not
equivalent to reordering components of the software module, as claimed (Br.
10, emphasis added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013