Appeal No. 95-3497
Application 08/158,649
831, 834, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Carella
v. Starlight Archery and Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 140, 231
USPQ 644, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Nor has the examiner explained
how Patti's adder would be modified to incorporate this feature.
The rejection of claim 5 for obviousness over Patti '975 or Patti
'636 is therefore reversed.
B. The rejection of claims 3, 6-14, and 16-20
The only independent claims in this group of rejected claims
are claims 3 and 14. In contrast to claim 5, which as noted
above, recites means responsive to an instruction for generating
the difference divided by two of each sub-word in said X word and
the corresponding sub-word in said Y word, claim 3 recites means
responsive to an instruction for generating the sum divided by
two of each sub-word in said X word and the corresponding sub-
word in said Y word. Claim 14 does not recite sub-words, instead
reciting means for generating a sum in response to an average
instruction and means for shifting the sum.
The examiner, noting that the Patti references do not
disclose "the claimed 'sum divided by two' (claim 3) and 'means
for shifting' (claim 14)," states that these features are well
known in the art and that Gerrath shows an adder 8 and a shifter
13 which correspond to these features. More particularly, the
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007