Appeal No. 2002-0273
Application No. 09/078,933
executing a JAVA routine, expressed in bytecodes, in a sequential fashion. The path
within the plurality of paths in the routine is necessarily identified; if not, then the path
could not be interpreted and executed. Kolawa thus teaches identifying a path being
executed, wherein the path is one of the plurality of paths in the routine, in the terms of
instant claim 1.
Appellant also argues (Brief at 7-8) that Kolawa does not teach leaving
unexecuted paths in bytecode form. Although the examiner has pointed to portions of
the reference that disclose executing only selected paths, the language of instant claim
1 is not commensurate with appellant’s argument. Even if Kolawa were to teach that all
instructions in a program are to be executed, as appellant contends, the claim does not
distinguish over the translation of bytecode instructions in a first of a plurality of paths,
prior to translation of the remaining paths. According to our reading of Kolawa, the
bytecode instructions in remaining paths remain untranslated at least until those
remaining paths are translated and executed in the normal sequence of operation.
We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments in defense of claims 2 and
3, which appear to be based on the erroneous view that Kolawa fails to teach
translating first type instructions (i.e., bytecode instructions) into another form. The
“executing second type instructions” of claim 2 does not distinguish over the “symbolic”
execution described by the reference, during normal looping within a program. Further,
with respect to instant claim 3, Kolawa does not disclose that the translated instructions
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007