Appeal No. 1997-0918
Application 08/160,301
selection is not conditional according to the claimed version
in claims 1 and 5 on appeal. In our view, the examiner
correctly points out at the bottom of page 1 of the
supplemental examiner's answer filed on July 31, 1996 that the
version of claims 1 and 5 has no unconditional recitation to
justify appellant's argument. In fact, this is somewhat an
anomalous argument because the title of appellant's invention
indicates that there is a conditional source selection of a
prior difference or a left shifted remainder according to the
invention anyway. Note also page 243, lines 8 and 9 of
appellant's disclosure.
In any event, it is clear from the teachings of Yamaoka
that under certain conditions, the selector 6 does select the
previously determined intermediate data word, which has been
previously left shifted by shifter 2 and placed in register A0
and then is fed by line 6A to the adder/subtractor 1 in
accordance with the subtraction feature argued in accordance
with the recitations of both independent claims 1 and 5 on
appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007