[rrss]

I disagree. Not all the claims include the “single instruction cycle,” and IMO several of the claims are general enough that one could make a case that a sequence of instructions directing the operation of a general purpose data path would be covered by the claim. (Claim 3, for example).

this would require a lawsuit to find out, but this wording in the description suggests the authors’ intent with the claims was to patent this method of computing an average on any processor:

> A general purpose computer or processor with suitable circuitry can execute the invention in a single instruction cycle (as is preferred) or multiple instruction cycles.