Appeal No. 2002-0273
Application No. 09/078,933
are stored in anything other than execution order, and we find no reason to believe that
the reference suggests otherwise.
While the “translating’ recited by instant claim 1 is broad enough to read on the
symbolic interpretation described by Kolawa, we note that the remainder of the
independent claims are more specific. Claims 4 through 32 call for “compiling” the
bytecodes.
Kolawa discloses compiling JAVA bytecodes by means of just-in-time Compiler
214 (Fig. 16). However, the compiling of the bytecodes is a separate operation from
the symbolic interpretation and execution of the bytecodes effected by the TGS driver
program 224. The just-in-time compilation described by the reference appears similar
to that described at pages 4 and 5 of the instant specification, in the description of prior
art methods.
The attempt by the rejection to read claims 4 through 32 on Kolawa appears to
rely on just-in-time compiler 214 for the teaching of “compiling.” However, compiler 214
is essentially unrelated to the further requirements of the claims. The rejection appears
to, alternatively, rely on JAVA compiler 208 (Fig. 16) for the “compiling.” Nonetheless,
JAVA compiler 208, as made clear by Figure 16 and column 17, lines 20 through 28, is
an intermediate compiler that compiles JAVA source code to JAVA bytecodes not
specific to a particular machine, rather than compiling bytecodes into a form suitable for
execution.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007