Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 12
that “an object of the present invention is to provide a system
and method for permitting a programmer to obtain and re-filter
historical trace information without re-executing the program
being debugged.” The examiner's position (final rejection, page
2) is that figure 2 of Borchardt discloses means for compiling
the program after the Execution Trace Facility has been inserted
into the code of the program. From our review of Borchardt, and
in particular figure 2, we find that Borchardt discloses
executing the program after the filtering criteria have been set
by the program or by default, but find no teaching or suggestion
of recompiling the program after insertion of the Execution Trace
Facility. Executing a program and recompiling a program are not
the same. In addition, we find no teaching or suggestion in
Borchardt of restarting the program and detecting and correcting
malfunctions only in response to a detection that a malfunction
has occurred in the program. We are not persuaded by the
examiner's assertion (final rejection, page 3) to the effect that
it is well known to restart a program and detect and correct
malfunctions after malfunctions have occurred, and that for
better detecting and correcting of malfunctions, an artisan would
have restarted the program and detected and corrected the
malfunction only after a malfunction is detected. The
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007