Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
claim 30 simply does not require the interpretation asserted by
Appellants in the Briefs.
We also agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 4) that the
alternative “interpreter” embodiment discussed at column 10,
lines 37-43 of Chan provides additional support for the position
that Chan’s disclosure anticipates the features set forth in
claim 30. In this alternative embodiment, Chan discloses that
the compiler intermediate representation 212 is directly executed
without first translating the intermediate representation into
object code.
We have considered Appellants’ arguments (Brief, page 8)
directed to Chan’s “interpreter” embodiment and find these
arguments to be without merit. While we agree with Appellants’
characterization of the operation of an interpreter as one that
sequentially translates and executes source program statements
one-by-one, it is equally true that this sequential statement by
statement translation must involve a conversion into machine
language code which enables execution by a computer. Since this
machine code execution would indisputably include computer
register involvement, we find that Chan’s interpreter embodiment
also provides for the generation of a directly executable machine
language program loaded on the memory of a second computer as set
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007