Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 14
tracing function ignores the portions for the claim requiring
that after recompiling the program, enabling the Execution Trace
Facility to restart the program and detect and correct the
malfunction only in response to detection of a malfunction. In
addition, because Borchardt discloses that the programmer makes
the determination as to whether the trace facility should be
activated, we find no suggestion or motivation to enable the
Execution Trace Facility to be enabled only in response to
detection of a malfunction. Thus, even if we combined the
teachings of Borchardt and Mann, the references are silent as to
recompiling the program after insertion of the Execution Trace
Facility, and enabling the Execution trace facility to restart
the program and to detect and correct a malfunction only in
response to a detection that a malfunction of the program has
occurred.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and claims 2, 3,
and 6-8, dependent therefrom, is therefore reversed. As
independent claims 9 and 17 include similar limitations with
respect to recompiling the program after the Execution Trace
Facility has been inserted into the program code, and restarting
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007