Appeal No. 1999-2702
Application No. 08/509,867
35 U.S.C. § 102, we interpret the examiner's position to be that Phillips has the basic
teachings upon which a skilled artisan would have been able to practice or suggest the
claimed invention. This is not the standard upon which to evaluate a rejection for
anticipation. Appellant argues that Phillips does not disclose a system which can generate
“all” permutations because they are not required and Phillips teaches minimizing the
hardware to only those needed to support the required mask instructions. (See reply brief
at page 2 and Phillips at columns 16-17). We agree with appellant that the level of
disclosure in Phillips does not teach the invention as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102 since
Phillips does not clearly teach other than the cyclic permutation. While the specification
and claims of Phillips appear to mention “any permutation” (Phillips at columns 24) and
non-cyclic permutations with respect to the “gather” and "spread" functions of the IBM 370
mainframe computer (Phillips at columns 25), Phillips does not in itself or by inherency
teach the invention as recited in claim 1 with respect to the following limitations:
means, responsive to an instruction, for directing at least one of said
sub-words to a location in said output register that differs from said location
occupied by said sub-word in said input register, said location being
specified by said instruction, the ordering of said sub-words in said output
register differing from the order obtainable by a single shift or rotation of the
contents of said input register or by a rotation of the contents of said input
register with one path from said input register to said output register being
disabled, the ordering of said sub-words in said output register being
independent of the contents of said sub-words.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007