Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 13
examiner’s's opinion is unsupported in the record, and is not a
substitute for evidence. Thus, we find that Borchardt does not
suggest enabling the Execution Trace Facility only in response
to a determination that a malfunction has occurred. We are
cognizant of the disclosure of Borchardt that the programmer
debugs the program (col. 3, lines 7 and 38). However, we find no
teaching or suggestion in Borchardt, and none has been pointed to
by the examiner, that would have suggested enabling the
Execution Trace Facility only in response to a determination that
a malfunction has occurred.
Turning to Mann, from our review of Mann, we find that trace
control circuit 218 implements user control for selectively
activating and deactivating trace functionality (col. 6, lines
17-24). We agree with the examiner that Mann discloses enabling
and disabling the tracing function. In addition, from the
disclosure of Mann (col. 6,, lines 57-59) that the disabling of
trace gathering is advantageously a software option, reducing
process power consumption and eliminating natural throttle-back
tendencies, we find that an artisan would have been motivated to
enable and disable the trace function of Borchardt. However,
claim 1 requires more. The examiner's assertion (final
rejection, page 3) that Mann teaches enabling and disabling the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007