Appeal No. 96-3302
Application No. 08/160,119
instructions. The operations include masking and rotating
which are different for each of the two instructions.
Appellants and the examiner rely on arguments considered above
with respect to other claims. For reasons which we have
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 13 or of claims 14-16 which depend
therefrom.
The final independent claim 17 has all the recitations
of claim 13 plus some additional recitations. Since we have
determined that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest the invention of claim 13, it also does not teach or
suggest the invention of claim 17. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 17 or of claims 18-
35 which depend therefrom.
Although we have limited our attention to the
inadequacies of the rejection of the independent claims, we
note for the record that we generally agree with all of
appellants’ arguments with respect to the separate
patentability of the dependent claims argued.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007