Appeal No. 96-3302
Application No. 08/160,119
masking and summing twice each. It is noted that the steps
are recited differently based on whether they correspond to
the first recitation or the second recitation. The examiner
asserts that the individual steps are disclosed by Harmon and
that it “is readily apparent that the steps ... can be
repeated” [answer, page 3]. Appellants’ arguments and the
examiner’s response with respect to this claimed repetition
feature have been discussed above. Although Harmon may be
capable of performing the method recited in claim 9 with
appropriate instruction, there is no teaching or suggestion to
implement the method as specifically recited in claim 9.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 9 or of claim 10 which depends therefrom.
Independent claim 11 is directed to an apparatus and
the operations performed by the apparatus in response to
repeated receipt of a single instruction. The examiner notes
the similarities between the structure of Harmon and the
structure of claim 11, and the examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to carry out the
operations recited in claim 11 [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that Harmon does not suggest summing plural
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007