Appeal No. 96-3767
Application 07/970,260
conventional reciprocal determination is then made. The
combination of teachings does not yield this function in a
relationship of the conditions set forth in this representative
claim. As such, we are in general agreement with appellant’s
observations reflected at the bottom of page 19 and the top of
page 20 of the principal Brief on appeal that the combination
would have necessitated a modification beyond the mere
substitution of the divider of Sierra for the divider in
Richardson.
We reach a similar result even when considering the Figure 5
embodiment of Richardson which details the use of a cache memory
with a single operand arithmetic unit. This is so because the
claims require the inputting of a dividend and a divisor rather
than just a single input. We also reverse the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 30, and 31 since the examiner has not detailed any
reason of obviousness from the combination of references for all
of the features in each of these claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007