Ex parte IWASAWA et al. - Page 14

          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                        
               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