Appeal No. 2004-0115 Page 4
Application No. 09/363,637
Claims 17-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.
Patent No. 5,341,321 ("Karp").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner admits "that Karp et
al do not specifically detail the claimed plurality of steps. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 3.)
Observing that "the equation (see col. 10, last line) is provided the same result as
claimed," (id.), however, he asserts, "it would have been obvious . . . to design the
claimed invention according to Karp et al's teaching because the reference is a floating
point system for performing square root operation as claimed." (Id.) The appellants
argue, "the algebraic equivalence of the equation on the last line of column 10 of
Karp . . . and any equation used to represent claim 17 does not make the recited
combination of steps in claim 17 obvious." (Appeal Br. at 21.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007