Appeal No. 96-1492
Application 07/666,162
processor having a highest operating rate receives a last
sequential one of the portions; and
second means connected to the plurality of processors,
for outputting results of the processing.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Liu et al. (Liu) 5,031,089 July 09, 1991
(filed Dec. 30,
1988)
Natarajan 5,146,540 Sep. 08, 1992
(effectively filed Feb. 22,
1990)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17-36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness
the examiner offers Liu in view of Natarajan.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007