Appeal No. 97-1182
Application No. 08/150,371
Turning, finally, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
102(b), we will not sustain this rejection.
In order for a proper rejection to rest under this
statutory section, the reference must teach or suggest each
and every claim limitation. While Watari does appear to be
fairly pertinent to the claimed subject matter, in generally
disclosing the multiplication of a vector data signal by a
constant matrix and the outputting of a result, the instant
claims call for much more.
The instant claims require the resolving of the first
constant matrix into a first group of constant matrices and
then a further resolving of one of the matrices of the first
group of constant matrices into at least three finally-
resolved constant matrices. Contrary to the examiner’s
position, we find no such resolving and further resolving in
Watari.
From column 4 of Watari, it is apparent that Watari does
a first resolving of a constant matrix C into a first group of
constant matrices, G1....Gn. However, there is no further
resolving of any one of these matrices G1...Gn into at least
three finally-resolved constant matrices. The examiner’s
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007