Appeal No. 2005-0133
Application 10/037,390
converter that converts the compiled form of an application into
a form suitable for interpretation by a specialized interpreter
that interprets derivative applications in the converted form.
Appellants assert that in Peyret the byte codes go directly from
compilation to interpretation without a conversion step.
Appellants argue that the examiner’s reliance on Renner to meet
the conversion step is misplaced because the conversion in Renner
has nothing to do with converting the output of a compiler.
Appellants assert, therefore, that there is no motivation in
Peyret or Renner to combine their respective teachings. Even
though claim 106 does not recite an integrated circuit card,
appellants also argue that Peyret is silent on how to enable a
program written in a high level language to operate on an
integrated circuit card [brief, pages 4-11].
The examiner responds that a “specialized interpreter” is
not claimed. The examiner also responds that standard Java
provides for the conversion feature when code is compiled on one
system and then transferred to another. The examiner asserts
that Peyret teaches a reduced interpreter which suggests that
some type of converting occurs. The examiner argues that both
Peyret and Renner teach the claimed conversion [answer, pages 3-
6].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007