Appeal 2007-0018
Application 10/107,262
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hu.
DISCUSSION
Sine and cosine instruction
Appellant argues that Hu does not disclose "decoding a sine and
cosine instruction." The examiner's position is that "the Frequency Control
Word [in Hu] is the equivalent of a sign [sic] and cosine instruction because
it defines the digital sine and cosine wave to be generated" (Final
Rejection 2). Appellant argues that this is completely unsupported by Hu
and there is no indication in Hu that the frequency control word is directed
toward decoding sine and cosine instructions (Br. 6).
The examiner responds that "the 'Frequency Control Word' must be
decoded, i.e. utilized, to generate the desired frequency" (Answer 4), and the
frequency control word determines the periodicity of the phase accumulator
"and it is this periodicity that determines the frequency of the programmable
sine/cosine wave generated" (id.).
Appellant replies that the frequency control word is merely an input to
determine the periodicity of a phase accumulator and the examiner's
statement that the periodicity determines the frequency of the programmable
sine/cosine wave generated is a completely unsupported assertion
(Reply Br. 2).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013