Appeal No. 2005-0133
Application 10/037,390
Appellants respond that standard Java only requires the
steps of compilation and interpretation, and does not require
conversion as claimed. Appellants also assert that the artisan
would have assumed that the programs in Peyret were written for
the target system so that no conversion would be required or
inherent in the Peyret system. Appellants also note again that
the type of conversion performed in Renner has nothing to do with
the type of conversion recited in representative claim 106 [reply
brief, pages 1-6].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 106 or of any of the other claims included
in Group I for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in
the briefs. The basic structure of Peyret’s system is shown in
Figure 2. The source code 46 is compiled into byte code 48 which
is fed to software interpreter 42. There is no disclosure in
Peyret which suggests that a conversion as claimed occurs between
the byte code 48 and the interpreter 42. The command dispatcher
or reduced interpreter suggested by Peyret is described as a
substitute for the interpreter and virtual machine. There is no
suggestion, however, that the reduced interpreter operates to
compile an application having a class file format and then
convert the compiled form into a converted form. With respect to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007