Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
of area markers to a single module per profile run."). One of
ordinary skill in the computer art would have known that the
profile data for one module would be saved as a single file
corresponding to the claimed "profile file." Thus, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that profiling
data for procedures and modules in Profiler could be saved either
as one file, containing all procedure data for all modules, or as
one file per module. The rejection of claim 33 is sustained.
Group 3 - Claims 5-7, 13-17, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 36, and 39
The independent claims in this group require an optimization
mechanism that (1) determines if procedure specific profile
information exists for a procedure, and (2) determines if the
existing profile information is valid. As described in the
specification (spec. at 14, lines 15-18): "[P]rofile data will be
said to be 'valid' either if the corresponding procedure has not
changed, or if the data is considered sufficiently adequate
(e.g., it is similar enough to the original procedure) and the
compiler can still use the data in this fashion."
Appellants argue that neither Profiler nor Aho discloses or
suggests an optimizer that checks for each procedure in a module
to determine whether both existing and valid profile information
is present (Br12). It is argued that Aho discusses optimization
but presumes that all necessary profile information is available
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007