Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748
Claims 8, 11, 12, and 15 require “analyzing the program to gather
information regarding a call to a function of the program including portions
of the program to which a compiler has no access.” As indicated supra, the
compiler in Peyton has access to all of the portions of the source code
modules.
Claim 16 requires “analyzing portions of the program about which the
compiler has no access using the linker.” The linkers 22 and 27 are in the
compiler in Peyton, and, therefore, can not perform this step of the claim.
Claim 18 requires “linking means for analyzing portions of the
program inaccessible to compiling means to determine information.” As
indicated supra, the linkers described by Peyton are incapable of performing
the claimed operation.
Claim 27 requires “linking logic configured to receive intermediate
objects from the translator logic and to analyze portions of the program to
which the translator logic has no access to obtain information.” Peyton is
silent as to “linking logic” that can “analyze portions of the program to
which the translator logic has no access.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 1, 4,
7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 27. The Examiner’s obviousness rationale for
claims 3 and 10 does not overcome the deficiencies noted in the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, obviousness has not been
established by the Examiner for claims 3 and 10. Obviousness has not been
established by the Examiner for claims 5, 6, 13, 17, 19 to 26, and 28 because
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013