Appeal No. 96-3697
Serial No. 08/255,304
examiner’s position that appellants’ rearrangement of address
bits is functionally equivalent to the swapping of addresses
as disclosed in Edelman in that both result in the processing
element having a different address does not establish the
obviousness of claim 1 over Edelman and Robinson. Neither
reference has been shown to teach rearrangement of data items
as among processing elements or storage locations within
processing elements, nor has it been shown that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to so modify the teachings of the
combined art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Although we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1-14 for the above reason, we agree with the examiner that
claim 1 does not require that a program be generated in
response to an initial address bit ordering and a final
address bit ordering, and that the claim does not require a
system that automatically generates a program. Additionally,
appellants’ argument that Edelman does not disclose a system
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007