Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
line 31 in Figure 1.2); (2) the number of seconds spent in that
area (6.2655 sec. for line 31 in Figure 1.2) or the number of
times that line executed (15,122 times for line 22 in Figure 1.4)
or both (Figure 1.5); (3) the percentage of total execution time
spent in that area (93% for line 31 in Figure 1.2) or the
percentage of total counts (82% in Figure 1.4) or both
(Figure 1.5); and (4) a magnitude bar displaying a proportional
graph of time (Figure 1.2) or counts (Figure 1.4) or both
(Figure 1.5). Thus, Profiler stores profile information about
each module and each area (routine or procedure) in the module.
Therefore, except for the need to explain the different
terminology, we find the subject matter of claim 1 to be
anticipated by Profiler. In fact, since no specific structure is
recited for the "procedure specific data storage areas," claim 1
is so broad that it is anticipated by the admitted prior art of
"instrumenting profilers" (spec. at 8-9) since known prior art
instrumenting profilers must save the count statistics for each
block of code or path in storage somewhere.
Appellants' arguments are based on reading limitations from
the specification into the limitation of a "procedure specific
data storage area." Appellants argue (Br8-9):
Claim 1 ... requires that profile information for a
procedure be stored in a procedure specific data storage
area for that procedure. Utilizing such a hierarchical
organizational structure facilitates future optimization by
permitting the procedure specific data storage area
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007