Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the examiner’s application of Chan to
independent claims 1 and 7, the examiner basically relies on
Chan’s Figure 12, equating the abstract syntax tree 1204 to
appellant’s claimed dependent parse tree, equating Chan’s
semantic analyzer 1128 to the claimed translator and equating
Chan’s decorated abstract syntax tree 1210 to the claimed
independent parse tree.
We are in agreement with appellant that the examiner’s
reasoning is faulty. As explained by appellant, at page 6 of the
brief, the problem with Chan is that it is directed to “only a
single language-environment combination, and neither tree 1204
nor tree 1210 is independent of that language-environment
combination.” As seen in Chan’s Figure 12, the decorated
abstract syntax tree 1210 of Chan is used to generate object
code. In this sense, it can be seen that Chan’s tree 1210 is
more akin to appellant’s dependent parse tree. That being the
case, Chan discloses nothing regarding an independent parse tree,
or the translator for translating the dependent parse tree into
an independent parse tree, as claimed. Accordingly, Chan cannot
anticipate the instant claimed invention as set forth in instant
claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 10 through 12 nor does it make
obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 3 and 9.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007