Appeal No. 1998-1518
Application No. 08/606,113
instructions in an original program during execution of a partial translation of the program,
and that information is used later during re-translation of the original program, it appears
that Sites does broadly teach a dynamic translation of a first block of code during runtime of
an application wherein the dynamic translation produces a translated block of code.
However, independent claim 1, as well as all the other claims, requires that the first block of
code be “within a shared library.” It is this claim limitation which we do not find disclosed or
suggested by either Sites or Crank.
Sites discloses nothing about a shared library and the examiner has pointed to
nothing within Sites alleging such a teaching. Crank does discuss a library, but only with
regard to providing for a user to specify restrictions for arguments to individual functions in
a library. Thus, barring any employment of impermissible hindsight, it is unclear how the
claimed limitation of a first block of code within a shared library, which block of code is
dynamically translated during runtime of a first application, is reached by any combination of
Sites and Crank.
The examiner explains, at page 12 of the answer, that Site teaches the capability of
“code representation including literals, registers, symbol table reference [col. 52, line 5
through col. 54 lines 65. This can be realized as library functions.” The examiner’s
explanation is obfuscatory and not persuasive since there is no cited teaching, within Sites,
that discusses a first block of code within a shared library which is dynamically translated
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007