Appeal No. 2002-0340
Application No. 09/094,827
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
Koizumi and Choudhury for similar reasons.
Koizumi seems more relevant to the instant claimed subject matter than the
other two applied references in that it discloses the translation of a source program into
an abstract object program including an abstract machine instruction sequence. It also
discloses an installer for converting the abstract object program into a machine
language program of a target computer. However, as pointed out by appellant, at page
9 of the brief, Koizumi’s installers are platform specific, rather than being the
multiplatform interpreter claimed. Thus, if a customer’s platform is changed, a new
installer will be required. This, of course, is much different than the instant claimed
invention wherein a single multiplatform interpreter is used.
Furthermore, again, as pointed out by appellant, at page 10 of the brief, the
installer of Koizumi does not appear to be an interpreter and, certainly is not a
multiplatform interpreter, as claimed. According to Koizumi (column 1, lines 26-35), an
interpreter is a program which, along with a language is adapted to interpret and
execute an intermediate language program on a target computer. An installer,
however, only translates an abstract object program into machine code. Accordingly, it
appears that Koizumi’s installers are not interpreters. So, to the extent that the
examiner relies on Koizumi’s installers as comprising the claimed multiplatform
“interpreter,” this finding is, in our view, erroneous. Therefore, Koizumi cannot be said
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007