Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
user is making a decision or the machine is making a
decision" (EA15). Appellants address this argument in
connection with the patentability rejection (Br10-11). The
term "via" is defined as "by means of" and indicates that
part of the step of deciding must be performed by the "data
processing system." However, the step of "deciding, via the
data processing device, whether said program portion is
parallelizable, based on assist information supplied from
the user" does not exclude the user from taking some action
to cause the system to perform the step, such as submitting
a rewritten program and running the compiler again. The
limitation is broad, not indefinite.
Still another source of the Examiner's problems is
failure to properly interpret the claim language. Many of
the claim limitations appear to be drafted in
step-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, because they recite a step and function (e.g.,
deciding . . . whether a portion of the source program is
determinable as parallelizable) without reciting any acts in
support thereof. This format requires that the limitations
be "construed to cover the corresponding . . . acts
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007