Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
does not preclude the user from being highly skilled in
parallelization techniques. Claim 1 does not define the
nature of the "prompting" as being questions. Nor does
claim 1 limit in any way what is considered "assist
information"; any information which would assist the
compiler in parallelizing the program can be considered
"assist information," including actually rewriting the
program or inserting directives or assertions.
Appellants argue that the present invention "provides
for a secondary, automated determination (i.e. deciding
step) as to whether a particular program fragment is
parallelizable after receipt of prompted, user input" (Br8).
The compiler in Padua re-determines whether the program is
parallelizable in response to the user inputted information.
That is, the user in Padua provides information, and may
provide more detailed information than in Appellants'
system, but it is still the compiler that determines whether
the program is parallelizable.
Appellants argue (Br9):
The subject application teaches an automated
parallelization method for use in connection with the
parallelization of a source program. Unlike earlier
systems, including Padua, et al., access to arguments
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007