Appeal No. 97-2525
Application 08/291,370
or (2) indicating in each one of the original physical
locations the new physical location corresponding to the moved
instruction. How these features operate are illustrated in an
embodiment shown in appellant’s own Figure 3. Instructions of
higher execution frequency are moved to the end of the
executable file and in their place are inserted unconditional
branches to the new location. It is the examiner’s burden to
demonstrate that Pettis discloses the appellant’s claimed
features.
The examiner cites to column 3, line 51 through column 4,
line 52 of Pettis as disclosing the moving of selected
instructions to the end of the executable file and placing in
their original place an indication of the new location. We
have read the cited portions of Pettis and do not find
anything to support the examiner’s determination. The
examiner further cites to column 8, lines 14-39 as disclosing
the same. We have read those portions of column 8 and again
cannot find the alleged disclosure. The examiner has not
established where Pettis discloses that the original locations
from where selected instructions have been moved are made to
contain indications of the new location for the moved
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007