Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
(p. 114) and the fact that call graphs are inherent in compilers
(EA38). The examiner observes that Aho teaches optimization
based on collected performance data (EA38).
We do not consider the examiner's reasoning persuasive of
obviousness because it does not address the specifics of the
claimed subject matter. The fact that call graphs and optimizing
compilers were known, as evidenced by Chapter 10 of Aho, does not
address the specific limitations of a call graph based on profile
data or determining a procedure packaging order as claimed.
Neither Profiler nor Aho discloses constructing a call graph
based on profile data or determining a procedure packaging order.
The specification is more relevant than any art cited by the
examiner and admits that "[k]nown in the art are existing methods
that analyze a weighted call graph of an object module or
executable module and rearrange the procedures in that module to
improve spatial locality, thus making more efficient use of
memory paging systems" (spec. at 24, lines 7-10). However, the
specification says nothing about a mechanism that "omits
procedures that no longer exist" (claim 8). While Aho discloses
dead-code elimination (p. 595), this is not in connection with
packaging and the examiner does not rely on this teaching of Aho
or on the admitted prior art. The optimization described in Aho
is not concerned with optimizing spatial locality by determining
a procedure packaging order. We conclude that the examiner has
- 25 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007