Appeal No. 96-3767 Application 07/970,260 set forth with our reversal as to independent claims 10 and 20. Claims 14, 16, 24, and 26 set forth remainder operations based upon the conditional determinations of the type set forth in independent claims 10 and 20 on appeal. Even if we were to agree with the examiner of the proper combinability of Ricihardson and Sierra, Sierra fails to cure these noted deficiencies with respect to Richardson’s teachings. We turn lastly to independent claims 1, 4, 5, 30, and 31, which all recite in some form method or apparatus versions of division operations by multiplying reciprocals of divisors to yield a quotient. Inasmuch as Richardson fails to disclose the specifics of the divider circuits 140, such as in Figure 2, but only generally discloses this element, we agree with the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have utilized the specific arithmetic circuit shown in Sierra for performing the representative division operations only generally disclosed in Richardson. However, we do not agree with the examiner’s view expressed at page 5 of the Answer that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have provided “the cache memory [of Richardson] with a reciprocal function in order to quickly obtain the reciprocal of the divisor without redundantly recomputing the reciprocal in the 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007