Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
example, representative claim 8 recites that validity is
determined "by comparing a signature of each procedure with
information stored in each corresponding procedure counter area."
A "signature" is described in the specification (spec. at 23,
lines 17-22). Claims 25 and 26 do not recite "signatures," but
determine validity by the same kind of comparisons.
Since neither Profiler nor Aho teaches or suggests
determining validity, as discussed in the analysis of Group 3,
they do not teach or suggest the specific mechanisms for
determining validity in the claims of Group 4. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 8-10, 25, 26, and 37 is reversed.
Group 5 - Claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31, and 38
The claims in this group recite that the optimization
mechanism additionally includes a mechanism that constructs a
call graph from profile data and a mechanism that analyzes the
call graph to determine a procedure packaging order which omits
procedures that no longer exist. Appellants argue that this
allows optimization of a packaging order despite the absence of
some profiling data (Br15). It is further argued that "[n]either
Profiler nor Aho discloses or suggests the performance of
optimization when only partial profile data is available" (Br15).
The examiner finds that appellants fail to address the kind
of information gathered for optimization in Profiler at Table 3.1
- 24 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007