Appeal No. 97-2525
Application 08/291,370
means for moving each of said selected
instructions from their original physical location
to a new physical location at the end of the
executable file; and
means for indicating in each one of said
original physical locations said new physical
location corresponding to said moved instruction.
DISCUSSION
We reverse.
A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
The appellant does not make any argument about the manner
in which the examiner applied the teachings from Levine.
Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal only concern the
examiner’s findings concerning what Pettis shows.
All of the appellant’s claims require the reordering of
the instructions within an executable file. The appellant
argues that in Pettis’ invention, it is the computer source
code rather than the executable file compiled from that source
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007