Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
There is no indication in Hastings that the format of the
relocatable object code disclosed therein is anything but
conventional. As appellants state, at page 12 of the
principal brief, “Hastings’ method begins with a relocatable
object code file and ends with a relocatable object code file.
The format of the relocatable object code file on which
Hastings’ method operates, both before and after the
modifications, is entirely conventional.” Hastings’ method of
code expansion ends before the loading process therein begins.
In any event, we do not find, in Hastings, a loading
instruction which “specifies updating of the first address
field of n consecutive ones of said information items, n being
specified in said loading instruction,” as claimed.
The examiner points to a loading instruction “BBQ 6” and
“BBQ 16” [answer-page 3] in Hastings. We presume that the
examine refers to instruction “BEQ,” as shown, for example, in
Hastings’ Figure 3. We agree with appellants, at page 15 of
the principal brief, that the BEQ instruction is a computer
instruction and not a loading instruction. The BEQ
instruction is, itself, updated by the Hastings method and it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007