Appeal No. 1996-3193
Application 08/160,112
found in Hill. The fact that Hill generally involves carries
does not meet the specifics of the claim limitations.
In addition, although we conclude that formation of the
running sum of absolute value of the differences in Taniguchi
would have been obvious in light of Appellants' lack of
argument on this point, we are not willing to modify this
modification to include "adding said running sum of carry
outputs to said running sum of absolute values of said
differences" as proposed by the Examiner's rejection without a
specific teaching.
Appellants argue that the teachings of Hill would result
in an incorrect answer (Br9-10). The Examiner asserts that
"it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to use the techniques
of Hill in view of Taniguchi to arrive at the claimed
invention" (EA8). We do not see how one of ordinary skill in
the art would reasonably be led to arrive at the claimed
subject matter from the multiplication technique of Hill even
using hindsight.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007