Appeal No. 2004-0098
Application No. 09/393,082
Claims 6-8, 10-18, 20-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lam, Hendren, and Lambright.
Claims 9, 19, and 27 are objected to, but allowable if rewritten in independent
form. Claims 1-5 and 30 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 12) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
In the Section 103 rejection set forth in the Answer, the examiner offers Lam as
teaching constructing a tree, and convolving a subtree into a leaf node (or subtree) of a
general tree, by traversing the general tree to the leaf node. “Lam does not specify
trees and subtrees as elements of a specific programming language. What Lam does is
to establish a mathematic principle in tree convolution used for a queuing network.”
(Answer at 4.) The rejection further relies on Hendren as teaching tree operations in an
intermediate representation of a high level program, and Lambright as teaching JAVA
bytecodes as an intermediate representation code of choice.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the tree convolution algorithm of Lam is directed
only to obtaining performance information for networks, and that none of the references
teach or suggest applying the algorithm to bytecodes or bytecode sequences. (Brief at
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007