Appeal No. 96-3302
Application No. 08/160,119
sections of a single data word nor performing the recited
operations in response to a single instruction [brief, pages
18-19]. The examiner responds that the rotate and compare
instruction of Harmon is a single instruction as recited in
claim 11 [answer, page 15].
We agree with appellants that the rotate and compare
instruction of Harmon cannot implement the operations recited
in claim 11. The examiner basically looks at a comparison as
a subtraction which is a negative addition. Thus, the
examiner views the rotate and compare instruction as a rotate
and sum instruction. The examiner’s position fails because
the comparison operation of Harmon is a logical comparison
rather than an arithmetic one. Thus, Harmon determines
whether a difference exists, but does not determine the
magnitude of the difference. Accordingly, there is no
suggestion to perform the addition of data in plural sections
of a single data word as recited in claim 11. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 or of
claim 12 which depends therefrom.
Independent claim 13 is directed to an apparatus and
the operations performed by the apparatus in response to two
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007