Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 10
Application No. 08/125,590
(internal citations omitted). Representative claim 24
specifies neither symmetries nor precomputing. Accordingly,
the appellants' reliance on these limitations for
patentability is not persuasive.
The appellants have neglected to address the examiner’s
rejection of claim 29. Accordingly, they have not shown error
in the rejection.
Therefore, we affirm the examiner’s rejections of claims
1-13, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we
address claims 9-12.
Claims 9-12
Regarding the obviousness of claims 9-12, the appellants
argue, “no reference performs combined operations within a
single register ....” (Appeal Br. at 12.) The examiner
offers no reply to the argument. We agree with the
appellants.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007