Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
line 8. This error was introduced by the amendment received
October 28, 1994 (Paper No. 5). The rejection of claim 5
and its dependent claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is sustained.
We have considered the Examiner's other rejections in
the Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer but are not
persuaded that the claims are indefinite for the reasons
discussed above. The rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner interprets (FR7-8; EA3) the claimed step
of "prompting, in accordance with an output of the data
processing device, a user for assist information upon a
determination by the deciding step that said program portion
is presently indeterminable as parallelizable" in claim 1 to
correspond to the user interaction strategy in Padua where,
"[w]hen something is not vectorized, the compiler gives a
reason . . ." (Padua, page 1198), and "[i]f users are not
satisfied with the outcome, they may resubmit the program
after rewriting parts of it or after inserting directives or
assertions" (Padua, page 1198). Thus, the Examiner (1)
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007