[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They don't anticipate the claims for a similar reason than the one the PTO re-examiner gave for not accepting as prior art Gabriel's text Performance and Evaluation of Lisp Systems. The patent claims do the symbolic resolution on object code instructions that are interpreted. The examiner seemed to consider that symbol resolution on any intermediate code instructions that are interpreted or that are converted to native code (for some of the claims) would be close enough to count as prior art. But not symbol resolution done after translation of an intermediate representation of code into native code, which is what happens in .SO and .DLL files.

By the way, here is a link I found to the 104 reexam rejection [PDF 1.9MB]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]