Ex parte JOHN W. PODUSKA, JR. - Page 8




          Appeal No. 96-2379                                                          
          Application 07/837,240                                                      


          number is the same as adding the number in its entirety at once             
          in a larger adder sufficient to add all of the bit positions.  In           
          our view, that is within the realm of the basic skills and common           
          sense intrinsically possessed by one with ordinary skill in the             
          art.  It should be noted that a conclusion of obviousness may be            
          made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of                
          ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion           
          in a particular reference.  In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163           
          USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).  That one number can be added to                 
          another in a single adder without splitting the first into two              
          parts is not a novel idea by any means.  Certain basic skills are           
          to be presumed.  See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ              
          771, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("[The appellant's] argument presumes             
          stupidity rather than skill").  We are not persuaded by the                 
          appellant that there is patentable distinction based on whether             
          the carry bit is naturally carried in a single adder or                     
          externally carried through use of two adders.                               
               In any event, neither the word “single” nor the words                  
          “natural carry” appear in any claim and we do not read the claims           
          as requiring only a single adder or a “natural carry” operation.            
               With respect to all independent claims 1, 2 and 12, the                
          appellant argues that the claimed invention requires input data             

                                          8                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007