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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007