Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
information. The user is apparently free to do whatever he
or she wants to solve the problem. The rejection of
claim 10 is reversed.
Independent claim 5 is intended to be directed to
actually executing the source program to generate assist
information instead of using assist information input by a
user when it is not possible to decide whether the program
is parallelizable. This is described in the specification
at, for example, page 7, line 10, to page 8, line 8. As
noted in connection with the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, claim 5 has a misdescriptiveness
problem. However, as to the patentability rejection, we do
not find anything in Padua that would have taught or
suggested executing the program and then using the results
of this execution in a step of deciding whether the program
portion is parallelizable. The Examiner does not address
the distinct limitations of claim 5. The rejection of
claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007