Appeal No. 2005-1860
Application No. 09/754,890
task by computing a marker at runtime and comparing it with a
stored marker to detect wild branches (col. 1, lines 41-43) and
generates a global label path identifier for a permissible path
which computes a check marker to be matched with other paths
(col. 1, lines 43-49).
Thus, although we agree with the Examiner that some kind of
path identifier is recognized by Chan for detecting and isolating
invalid branches, we do not find any specific teaching in the
reference that relates to the claimed program trace that
identifies a path through the computer program. In concluding
that Chan’s markers could also identify paths of execution in a
computer program, the Examiner attempts to forge a combination of
a labeled error messages that identify specific errors and
markers that identify wild branches. Thus, assuming, arguendo,
that it would have been obvious to combine Detlefs with Chan, as
held by the Examiner, the combination would still fall short of
teaching or suggesting the claimed feature of including a program
trace that identifies a path through the computer program.
Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22-27, 30, 33, 36,
39, 42, 45 and 47 over Detlefs and Chan.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007