Appeal 2007-1541
Application 10/334,695
space or kernel space, is misplaced. Not only does Berry explicitly disclose
plural flags, indicating (plural) permission levels, but Berry describes the
setting of user space versus kernel space as a mere example, clearly
implying other (unstated) possibilities. Appellants’ suggested interpretation
of Berry as teaching only a single privilege flag is thus found to be
unpersuasive.
We also disagree with Appellants’ argument that Berry and Doi are
not properly combinable. While Berry may be directed to capturing
symbolic trace data and Doi is directed to capturing branch trace data, Berry
and Doi are commonly directed to tracing computer operation and saving
data relevant to that operation for later review and action by human
operators (FF 6, 9). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ point that Doi
teaches compressing trace data whereas Berry does not, and that data
compression would be incompatible with the operation of Berry (Br. 11).
The Examiner’s asserted combination does not contemplate that Berry be
modified to include Doi’s compression feature, and we see no reason why it
would be mandatory to do so.
Because the asserted combination amounts to the combination of
familiar elements according to known methods, doing no more than yield
predictable results, we find that it would have been obvious to modify Berry
to selectively store branch trace store data according to the teachings of Doi.
As such, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Appellants present no separate argument directed to the limitations of
claims 9-12. The rejections of those claims are therefore affirmed as well.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013