Appeal No. 1998-0598
Application No. 08/278,864
Even if it would have been obvious to have relied
upon Burden’s suggestion of using L U resolution,
Burden provides no suggestion that some ROM in an
apparatus contain data which “are values produced when
the coefficient matrices are subjected to L U
resolution.” In other words, Burden provides no
suggestion that coefficient matrices be subjected to L
U resolution and then stored within ROM. Since
Shimpuku and Kanota also fail to provide this
suggestion, the rejection of claim 3 is improper
and should not be sustained on appeal.
We agree with appellants’ argument. As a result thereof, the
obviousness rejection of claim 3 based upon the combined
teachings of Shimpuku, Kanota and Burden is reversed.
In the alternative rejection of claim 3 (Answer, pages 4
and 5), the examiner combines the ROM teachings of Ushirokawa
to the teachings of Shimpuku, Kanota and Burden. Appellants
argue (Reply Brief, pages 3 and 4) that “although Ushirokawa
does disclose a ROM for storing coefficients, Ushirokawa does
not suggest a ROM for storing coefficient matrices that are
subjected to L U resolution.” We agree. The obviousness
rejection of claim 3 based upon the combined teachings of
Shimpuku, Kanota, Burden and Ushirokawa is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007