Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
The examiner relies on the following references:
Turbo Profiler Version 2.0 User's Guide (Borland International
Inc. 1991) (hereinafter "Profiler").
Aho et al. (Aho), Compilers -- Principles, Techniques, and Tools
(Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 1986), Chaps. 7 & 10.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1 and 3-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Profiler in view of common knowledge of
compiler theory as taught by Aho.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 11) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 16) (pages referred
to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
In the second Office action (Paper No. 7), the examiner
rejected claims 10 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. The examiner quoted claim 10, which
read: "The apparatus of claim 8 wherein said signature of each
procedure includes at least one functional value computed from
attributes of said procedure." The examiner stated (Paper No. 7,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007