Ex parte Peterson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2000

08517902 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 20

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES R. PETERSON
____________

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before KRASS, RUGGIERO and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.

KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1-26, all of the claims pending.

The invention is directed to computer methods and
apparatus for computing reciprocals and performing divide
operations. More particularly, an estimated reciprocal

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

2
term is looked up in a first lookup table, wherein the
estimated reciprocal term corresponds to a first portion of
the operand, an error term is looked up in a second lookup
table, wherein the error term corresponds to a second
portion of the operand, and the reciprocal is generated
from the estimated reciprocal term and the error term.

Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:

1. A method of computing a reciprocal of an operand
comprising the steps of:

a) looking up an estimated reciprocal term in a
first lookup table, wherein the estimated
reciprocal term corresponds to at least a first
portion of the operand;

b) looking up an error term in a second lookup
table, wherein the error term corresponds to at
least a second portion of the operand; and

c) generating the reciprocal from the estimated
reciprocal term and the error term.

The examiner relies on the following reference:

Yamaguchi 5,012,438 Apr. 30, 1991

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

3
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yamaguchi.1

Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.

OPINION

We reverse.

A prior art reference anticipates the subject matter
of a claim when the reference discloses every feature of
the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.
See Hazani v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Yamaguchi is clearly directed to subject matter which
is similar to that claimed and solves a similar problem of
reducing the memory capacity used by a reciprocal

1 The answer, at page 4, indicates that the rejection is
“based upon a public use or sale of the invention Yamaguchi
. . . .” Based on the explanation of the rejection and the
arguments in both the briefs and answer, it is clear that
the rejection is bases on an anticipation of the claimed
subject matter by Yamaguchi and not, in any way, on a
“public use or sale.”

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

4
arithmetic circuit with a ROM table. However, Yamaguchi
appears to solve the problem in a manner somewhat
differently than does the instant claimed invention.

Yamaguchi is apparently interested in looking up the
reciprocal of the square of the upper-bit data AH of a
divisor A rather than looking up the actual estimated
reciprocal term in a first lookup table, as claimed. Also,
Yamaguchi does not appear to employ a second lookup table
for looking up an error term, as is also claimed.

The examiner relies on Figure 14 and columns 9-11 of
Yamaguchi for the teaching of the elements of the instant
independent claims, identifying, at page 4 of the answer,
various lines in these columns. However, the examiner does
not particularly point out exactly what portions of the
Yamaguchi disclosure are alleged to correspond to the
instant claimed elements.

Apparently, the examiner is alleging that Yamaguchi’s
ROM 51 corresponds to the claimed second lookup table and
that ROM 52 would correspond to the claimed first lookup
table. But, if this is the case, the examiner’s
allegations are not borne out by the disclosure of

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

5
Yamaguchi. The error term in Yamaguchi which corresponds
to the claimed error term would appear to be D while the
estimated reciprocal term in Yamaguchi would appear to be
Ri. Yet, Figure 14 of Yamaguchi shows that D is not part of
the table 51; nor is R; part of the table 52. Thus, there
does not appear to be any correspondence between the
claimed estimated reciprocal terms or error terms and the
ROMs of Yamaguchi.

The examiner’s response to appellant’s arguments, at
pages 5-6 of the answer, fails to elucidate on the general
allegations made by the examiner in the statement of the
rejection. Accordingly, they are of little help to us in
understanding exactly what the examiner considers to be the
elements in Yamaguchi which correspond to the claimed
elements. Therefore, we find no prima facie case of
anticipation established by the examiner.

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

6
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1-26 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) is reversed.

REVERSED

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge)

Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902

7
BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR
AND ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BLVD.
7TH FLR.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025

EAK/dal