Appeal No. 97-2525
Application 08/291,370
instructions. From the looks of Pettis’ Figure 3, it appears
that in Pettis the original locations are re-used to store
other selected instructions. Note further that according to
Pettis (column 3, lines 45-50), after the reordering program
size is reduced, whereas according to the appellant’s claimed
scheme the program size is necessarily enlarged. It has also
not been shown that in Pettis the moved instructions are
placed at the end of the executable file. Read in light of
appellant’s specification, we interpret that limitation to
mean that the moved instructions are placed subsequent to or
following the end of the executable file. It appears that in
Pettis the reordering is all done within the same program
space. For instance, see Pettis’ Figure 3.
As applied by the examiner, Levine does not make up for
the deficiencies of Pettis.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 20,
23-25, 28-30, and 33-34 cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of 20, 23-25, 28-30, and 33-34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis and Levine is
reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007