Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
of processors, however, “[i]t would have been obvious ... to
simply stack a number of processors by assigning different
functions to each processor when there is a prior teaching of
the equivalent functions performed on one processor.”
[Answer, page 9 ]. Appellant argues that Nakatsuka does not
show a general processor [brief, page 6] and also controverts
the Examiner’s “functionally equivalent” argument [brief, page
7 and reply brief, pages 1 and 4]. We find that Nakatsuka’s
invention is directed to a “Pattern Recognition Apparatus” and
as such does not go into what is specifically done to the
digital data output after the recognition process. Therefore,
Nakatsuka does not show a general processor in the same sense
that Appellant does in figure 2 of the specification.
However, Nakatsuka does disclose a bus
line 11 which connects the output of the recognition apparatus
to an external output unit such as a printer 13. We are of
the view that to connect the digital output of the recognition
process and apparatus of Nakatsuka to a general processor,
instead of a printer, would have been obvious to an artisan in
the data processing arts.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007