Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 13
Application No. 08/461,943
Regarding the obviousness of claim 18, the appellants
argue that the claim is “patentable for the same reasons set
forth above in connection with claim 1.” (Appeal Br. at 21.)
As aforementioned regarding claims 1 and 11, we do not find
these reasons persuasive. In addition, the appellants make
the following argument.
[C]laim 18 is also patentable because the
method for converting a source program to an
object code is limited to the steps of
identifying from either compiler directive or
syntax at a selected point in said first
intermediate representation of the source
program a possible asynchronous activity,
inserting a pseudo operation responsive to
identifying the possible asynchronous activity
for a selected variable at the selected point
in said first intermediate representation of
the source program. (Id.)
In response, the examiner notes, “Cordy teaches identifying
either compiler directive or syntax in the source program
indicating said asynchronous activity can occur" (page 760,
second paragraph) shows a 'bind var z to v' statement
indicative to the compiler that an asynchronous activity or
call to procedure P can occur.” (Examiner’s Answer at 12.)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007