Appeal No. 1998-1589
Application No. 08/388,631
individual analysis of each reference and generalization with respect to language of the
claimed invention. The express language of claim 21 does not require that the RNG output
any value to a separate computer, but the language merely requires an interface between
the RNG circuit and a computer within the RNG. From our understanding of the examiner’s
rejection, a software-based PRNG outputting a value to an outside computer would require
some device driver if the value were output on a standard (parallel) port. We agree with
the examiner. Therefore, the language of claim 21 is met. We agree with the examiner
that this is taught and suggested by the combination of references applied.
As set forth in the decision, the examiner has provided a teaching or convincing line of
reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to combine the teachings of
Fasang, Stankovic and Yokouchi to teach or suggest the invention as recited in the
language of claim 21 and its dependent claims. (See decision at pages 7-11.) The
decision starts with a finding concerning the scope of claim 21 with respect to appellant’s
arguments to claims 21 and 28. Therefore, we interpreted the RNG of claim 21 to be
broad enough to encompass a PRNG, which appellant admits is taught by Stankovic as a
“software-based” PRNG. (See Request for Rehearing at page 3.)
Appellant argues that the interpretation of “random number generator” by the Board in
claim 21 to be broad enough to encompass PRNG and true RNG is in error.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007