Appeal No. 1998-2709
Application No. 08/451,796
Appellant also argues that the circuit in Albers will
eventually result in cyclic repetition [brief, page 4].
With respect to the second argument, we are not persuaded
by this argument. Albers teaches forming a random number by
combining the outputs of two different pseudo-random number
generators. While appellant is correct that the output in
Albers will eventually repeat, we do not agree that this
result is precluded by the language of claim 5. The pseudo-
random numbers generated in Albers are considered to be
“random numbers” within the broad definition of that term as
it is typically used in this art.
We do not agree with appellant’s argument that Albers
teaches away from using two different types of random number
generators. Although the preferred embodiment of Albers uses
two
pseudo-random sequence generators clocked at different
frequencies, the teachings of Albers are not so limited. It
is clear from the disclosure of Albers that the main
requirement of that invention is that the outputs from the two
random number generators must be different. This provides an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007