Appeal No. 2001-1507
Application No. 08/972,129
Alternatively, the examiner maintains at page 15 of the answer that Hsieh
teaches the same method of selective compilation except for the use of a signature.
We agree with the examiner that Hsieh teaches compilation and is silent as to the use
of a signature. While Hsieh discloses the use of a verification process at page 72 and
73, we do not agree with the examiner that Hsieh teaches a comparing step
corresponding to the appellants’ description. (See answer at page 15.) Hsieh discloses
that “classes are validated during the translation, leaving the native code on the local
machine for future invocations of the program. This verification is performed again only
when the updater spots a change in a class.” (Hsieh at pages 72-73.) From our review
of the teachings of Hsieh, we find no teaching or suggestion of how the updater
determines or spots a change in a class. The examiner relies on page 69 and Fig. 2 of
Hsieh to teach that a cache copy is used if available and otherwise the code is
translated. Here again, the examiner strains to stretch the teachings of Hsieh in an
attempt to meet the language of independent claim 1. Since there is no signature
generated by the application, there can be no suggestion to compare this signature to a
stored signature. Therefore, we find no support for the examiner’s conclusion at page
15 of the answer that Hsieh’s verification is the same as the disclosed verification. The
examiner then concludes that “Zhang inherently teaches the claimed invention despite
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007