Appeal No. 1997-2658
Application No. 08/478,974
5, 16, 39, and 41. Claim 2 recites “running an application
which includes application code modules” and “analyzing said
application code modules to identify critical regions.” Each
of independent claims 15 and 16 recites “analyzing a program
with a performance analysis tool to identify critical regions”
which we interpret in the claimed context as being a run-time
analysis. Similarly, independent claims 39 and 41 each recite
the computer implemented steps of “executing computer
executable code” and “identifying a critical region of said
computer executable code.” In view of the above
discussion, it is our opinion that, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior
art, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 2, 15, 16, 39, and 41, as well as claims 3-
14, 17-21, 34-38, and 40 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
We next turn to a consideration of independent claim 1
and note that, while we found that the Examiner had failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
independent claims 2, 15, 16, 39, and 41, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to independent claim 1. The
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007