Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
raised by the examiner. On this record, the examiner's position
remains entirely unrebutted by the appellant as to how and why
Comins discloses input words which include both location and
intensity information. The appellant has not given us any reason
to hold that the examiner's finding in that regard is erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Comins.
With regard to the further features added by dependent
claims 5-9, 15, and 17-19, the appellant does not dispute the
findings of the examiner and does not explain why the claimed
subject matter would not have been obvious over the cited prior
art except to note their dependence on an independent claim which
is believed by the appellant to be allowable. Accordingly, these
claims will fall with their corresponding independent claims.
With regard to claim 3 which recites that the adder
comprises an adder circuit having a carry function, and claim 13
which recites that the adding step includes operating an adder
circuit having an adder function, the issue is the same as that
concerning an alleged distinction based on whether one or two
adders are used for the adding function. In the appeal brief at
8, the appellant argues that the two adders of Comins are very
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007