Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
reasons why a program portion was not vectorized or why the
"assist information" cannot broadly be read on rewritten
parts of the program or user-inserted directives or
assertions which assist the compiler to vectorize the
program. Claim 1 does not define the nature of the prompt
or the assist information. Appellants do not contest the
implied finding that the teachings with respect to user
interaction for "vectorization" in Padua are applicable to
"parallelization." Padua is clearly directed to
parallelization. Appellants do not contest that it would
have been obvious to perform the teachings of Padua on a
data processor as taught by Iwasawa. We next consider
Appellants' arguments why the evidence is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants argue that "the subject invention teaches a
system which allows for parallelization without knowledge of
parallelization techniques" (Br8). The Examiner responds
that the claims are broad and that the arguments do not
correspond to the limitations in the claims (EA5-6). We
agree with the Examiner that the arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. The language of claim 1
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007