Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
Levine discloses all that is claimed, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Levine.
We note Appellant argues independent claims 9, 38, and 55 are
allegedly patentable over the prior art of record for essentially the same
reasons previously argued for independent claim 1 (Br. 11, 13, 14).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal with
respect to claims 2-15, 38, 40, 41, and 43-60 on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being anticipated by Levine for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to representative claim 1.
Claims 16-37 and 39
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-37 and 39 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 16 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 fails to disclose the method of linking
the software module onto a target memory space or using symbol resolution
without storing the entire software module in local memory (Br. 11,
emphasis added). Appellant further argues that Levine does not describe the
saving of the software module, the amount of the software module saved,
nor the location of where the software module is saved (Br. 12).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013