Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 18
Application No. 08/220,410
not in isolation but for what they fairly teach in combination
with the prior art as a whole. Id. at 1097, 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on the combination of
Admission and Fujii. The appellants admit that a LWDF was old
and well known at the time of the invention. For example,
they specify, “[p]revious hardware implementations of the LWDF
of Fig. 1 use the traditional structure (Fig. 2) ....” (Spec.
at 1.) The appellants also describe “previous LWDF
architectures”. (Id.) The combination of Fujii’s CPU with
the admitted LWDF would have resulted in the claimed invention
in which a LWDF is connected to a CPU.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the appellants point out what
the claims cover and allege generally that “[n]either Hirosaki
nor Fujii discloses or suggests this aspect ....” (Appeal Br.
at 11-12.) The examiner replies, “Fujii’s elements FF3 and2
FF4 provides [sic] the required multiplication coefficients.”
2Hirosaki was not relied on in rejecting claims 23 and
24. Accordingly, we will not consider the appellants’
arguments relating the reference to claims 23 and 24.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007