Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
function does not defeat a finding of anticipation if all the claimed structural
limitations are found in the reference. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1479,
44 USPQ2d at 1433.
Appellant argues that independent claims 23, 36, and 39 are allegedly
patentable over the prior art of record for essentially the same reasons
previously argued for independent claim 16 (Br. 12-14). Pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal with respect to claims
17-37 and 39 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 16.
Dependent claim 42
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 42 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Levine in view of Breslau.
Appellant argues that Breslau does not supply the deficiencies
allegedly present in Levine (Br. 18).
We see no deficiencies with respect to Levine, as discussed supra.
We find Breslau specifically discloses that object modules to be linked may
reside on local or remote computer systems (i.e., different computer
systems) (col. 4, ll. 11-20). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Levine, as modified by Breslau, teaches all that is claimed (i.e.,
“transferring the reordered software module to a different computer system;
and linking the reordered software module on the different computer
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013