Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
regarding parallelization is accomplished by the data
processing device, but might be directed to simply
displaying data rather than performing the decision. The
Examiner responds that he "was only pointing out that 'via
the data processing device' does not mean that the user has
made a decision (nor does it mean that the data processing
system made a decision" (EA9). As discussed in connection
with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
we interpret "via the data processing device" to require
that the data processing system performs the step of
"deciding." Nevertheless, any error in the Examiner's
position does not affect the patentability rejection. Padua
does not end its operation when it displays a reason why
parallelization may not be accomplished as argued by
Appellants (Br11). The compiler in Padua (running on a data
processing device) determines whether the program is
parallelizable with the user-input information entered in
response to the reasons. It would not make sense for the
compiler to gather information and then not use it. The
step of "deciding, via the data processing device" includes
the user in Padua re-running the compiler to have the
- 15 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007