Appeal No. 97-2525
Application 08/291,370
code that is reordered. We are not persuaded by the
appellant’s argument.
While Pettis does describe a two-pass procedure over “computer
code”, the appellant appears to have incorrectly assumed that
both passes are over the same computer code, i.e., source
code. Pettis describes that in the first pass, the computer
source code is compiled into an executable file but nowhere
refers to the second pass as being over the “source code” or
indicates that the reordered computer code should or needs to
be re-compiled. Moreover, computers do not directly execute
source code and thus it is not very meaningful to rearrange
portions of the source code program in memory. It also
appears that however the source code is stored in memory, the
same compiler would still produce the same executable file.
Pettis nowhere talks about modifying the compiler to produce a
reordered executable file based on different storage
arrangements of the source code.
Nevertheless, we are persuaded by the appellant’s other
arguments that Pettis does not disclose either (1) moving each
of selected instructions from their original physical location
to a new physical location at the end of the executable file,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007