Appeal No. 96-3767
Application 07/970,260
As a result of our study of Richardson and consideration
with appellant’s arguments, the examiner’s position and the
subject matter of these claims in this rejection, we essentially
agree with the appellant’s statements set forth here:
Claim 10 recites separate steps for determining the
presence of each of the input dividend and divisor in
the cache memory, and the step of determining whether
the dividend is present in the cache memory is
conditional upon the divisor being present in the cache
memory. If both the divisor and the dividend are
present in the cache memory, the quotient of the
dividend and the divisor is read out from the cache
memory and is used to find the remainder. Thus, a
single cache access occurs, but the presence of the
dividend and divisor is determined separately. (Brief,
page 13)
Richardson fails to disclose the performance of a
remainder operation. Furthermore, result cache look-
ups in Richardson are performed using a single
representation of the input operand pair, and
Richardson does not teach or suggest that each operand
of an operand pair may be searched for separately, as
required by the present claims. (Brief, page 14)
Since we have reversed the rejection of independent claims 10 and
20, we also reverse the rejection of their respective dependent
claims 11, 12, 21, and 22.
Turning lastly to the rejection of the remaining claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective teachings of
Richardson in view of Sierra, we reverse the rejection of
independent claims 14, 16, 24, and 26 essentially for the reasons
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007