Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 8
amended claims expressly recite that the Execution Trace Facility
is inserted into the code of the program in a 'disabled mode' and
thereafter enabled 'only' in response to a determination that a
malfunction of the program has occurred." Appellants assert
(id.) that Borchardt “fails to show or suggest in any way the
inclusion of an Execution Trace Facility within a program in a
disabled mode which may then be selectively enabled upon a
determination that an error has occurred.” In addition,
appellants (brief, pages 5 and 6) dispute the examiner's
assertion that Mann discloses a software debug facility, arguing
that Mann discloses a debug controlled software program 112 which
is executed by host system 111, which controls the extraction and
analysis of debug information generated by the target system 101,
and that Mann teaches a hardware system which must be coupled to
the system under test via a debug port to execute a test of the
software within the target system.
It is further argued (brief, page 6) that “no combination of
Mann and Borchardt, et al., is appropriate, and even if such a
combination is appropriate, that combination cannot be said to
show or suggest the insertion of an Execution Trace Facility in a
‘disabled’ mode ‘into the code of the program ...’ which is
thereafter recompiled and operated ‘in a normal operating
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007