Appeal No. 1996-3193
Application 08/160,112
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 5 is
reversed.
Group III - Claims 6 and 7
Group IV - Claim 8
Appellants argue (Br11) that the combination of Taniguchi
and Hill fails to make obvious the following limitations of
claim 6: (1) "simultaneously forming a predetermined
plurality of differences between" (emphasis added) respective
pairs of numbers; (2) "simultaneously for all of said
predetermined plurality of differences conditionally either
1) adding . . . or 2) subtracting a particular one of said
plurality of differences from said respective one of said
plurality of running sums of absolute values of differences";
and (3) "thereafter adding said plurality of running sums of
absolute values of differences to form the sum of the absolute
value of the difference between each pair of numbers of
respective first and second sets of numbers." Appellants
argue that neither the Office action of February 21, 1995, nor
the Final Rejection include any reference to this subject
matter.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007