Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
interprets teachings for "vectorization" to apply to
"parallelization," and (2) interprets the claimed
"prompting" to read on the compiler giving reasons to the
user and the claimed "assist information" to broadly read on
the rewritten parts of the program or the inserted
directives or assertions. The compiler decides whether the
program portion is parallelizable based on the user entered
"assist information."
Appellants acknowledge the Examiner's interpretation
(Br12, first full para.), but then just states that "there
is no 'prompting' or 'receiving' in an interactive
environment as set forth in independent claims 1, 5, 9 and
12" (Br12). Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's
interpretation is erroneous or unreasonable. The Examiner
responds that a "prompt" is defined as "displayed text
indicating that a computer program is waiting for input from
the user" and so the user interaction in Padua involves
prompts (EA11).
The step of "prompting . . . for assist information" in
claim 1 is extremely broad. There is no stated reason why
"prompting" cannot broadly be read on the compiler providing
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007