Appeal No. 1998-3398
Application No. 08/634,515
see no reason why this optimization function would not meet
the claim limitation of augmenting mathematical functions, as
broadly
recited in the claim, particularly as no arguments have been
presented to convince us otherwise. Therefore, Hayashi
appears to meet all of the limitations of claim 12, with Cocke
and either Morgan or Rall merely being cumulative. Although
the rejection is based on a combination of references, it is
permissible to affirm the rejection relying on only one. See
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961). Accordingly,
we will affirm the rejections of claim 12 and its dependents,
claims 13 through 18.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed as to claims 1 through 11
and affirmed as to claims 12 through 18.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007