Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
and program subroutines are examined even if a loop
includes a subroutine call associated with an argument.
This examination provides for a decision as to whether
or not the subroutine call effects a loop in
parallelization . . . . In addition to the foregoing,
the subject invention teaches a mechanism by which a
user may be queried as necessary, concerning
parallelization conditions in order to perform
efficient, automatic conversion of a programmed
fragment . . . . In the event a user may not answer a
question, a source program that includes directives for
outputting a result of program executions is
automatically generated. Thereafter, the program is
executed . . . . The system further performs
parallelization on a basis of a result of such
execution. Accordingly, the only thing a user needs to
do is answer prompting questions. Specific knowledge
of a parallelization technique or directives to the
compiler is not required of the user.
These arguments are not persuasive because they are not
supported by limitations in claim 1. Claim 1 does not
recite that the parallelization examines subroutines or that
the "assist information" relates to "parallelization
conditions."
Appellants argue (Br9-11) that the Examiner's reasoning
in the Final Rejection (at FR6, last full para. beginning
with "with respect to Padua") is unclear (as indicated by
the three notes, Br10), and is erroneous to the extent it
states that the claim language, "via the data processing
device," does not provide a limitation that the decision
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007