Appeal 2007-1959
Application 10/039,789
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants urge that the
translation of a parallel computer program in Poulsen is a single translation
into a second parallel program and does not include a third program based
on another translation of the first program (Br. 12). Based on such
interpretation, Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not combine Poulsen with Sundaresan since Sundaresan does not indicate
that such translation is needed (Br. 13). Therefore, the issue turns on
whether there is a legally sufficient justification for combining the
disclosures of Poulsen and Sundaresan and, if so, whether the combination
of the applied references teaches the claimed subject matter, including
translating a first program unit into a second program unit and into a third
program unit, with each program unit performing its corresponding function.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal and are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Appellants describe the claimed term “program unit” as “a
collection of statements in a programming language that may be processed
by a compiler or translator” (Specification 7:13-15).
2. Poulsen relates to privatizing global storage objects in parallel
computer programs to provide per-thread private copies of these global
objects when executing parallel computer programs (col. 1, ll. 28-33).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013