Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
compiler decide whether the program is now parallelizable.
The user does not decide in Padua.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
non-obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 have not been separately argued
and, so, these claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 is sustained. Appellants
mention claim 4 (Br14), but do not provide any argument in
support of patentability. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) ("Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an
argument as to why the claims are separately patentable.").
Claim 4 falls with claim 1. The rejection of claim 4 is
sustained.
Independent claims 9 and 12 include limitations for
analysis, receipt of user feedback, and performing
subsequent analysis which correspond to claim 1. Appellants
do not argue the step of "inserting . . . a program
statement" (claim 9) or the step of "either inserting a
program statement . . . or compiling" (claim 12) and, so, we
do not address these limitations. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (argument must address the errors
- 16 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007