Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 14
Application No. 08/461,943
Giving claim 18 its broadest reasonable interpretation,
we find that the claimed invention does not define over the
references. The claim specifies in pertinent part
“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 said possible
asynchronous activity for a selected variable at said selected
point in said first intermediate representation of the source
program ....” In short, the claim recites using a compiler
directive or syntax to identify a point of possible
asynchronous activity in an intermediate representation of a
source program and inserting a pseudo operation at that point.
Because the claim employs a disjunctive connector, viz., “or,”
it reads on prior art that specifies a compiler directive or
syntax. Prior art need not specify both a compiler directive
and syntax.
As aforementioned regarding claims 1 and 11, Cordy
discloses identifying the bind statement “bind (var x to a(i),
var y to a(j)),” and inserting the legality assertion “assert
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007