Appeal No. 2000-0702
Application 08/653,306
multiplier elepment. However, for the same rationale as above,
we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of element 3 of
Kono as the recited multiplier. The output 14 in Kono is not
simply a result of the operation of element 3 but is the result
of the operation of all the elements involved between input 11
and output 14. Also, we disagree with the Examiner for the
motivation to combine Rein and Kono for the same reason as stated
above. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 4 over Rein and Kono.
With respect to claim 6, since the addition of the reference
to Hamano does not cure the deficiency noted above, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 6 over Rein in view of
Naka or Kono and further in view of Hamano.
In conclusion, we have not sustained under 35 U.S.C. § 103
the rejection of claim 4 over Rein in view of Naka or Kono, and
the rejection of claim 6 over Rein in view of Naka or Kono and
further in view of Hamano.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007