Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
is “0001" as recited in claim 8 [brief, page 9]. The examiner
responds that Chu can provide a single bit of value “1" to the
shifter which would meet the recitation of claim 8 [answer,
pages 12-13]. Appellants reply that their inputs to the barrel
rotator are so different from the Chu rotator that Chu does
not make the claimed invention obvious [reply brief, page 12].
When the scope of claim 8 is considered, we agree with
the examiner that the broad recitation of applying a data
input of value “0001" would have been obvious to the artisan
in view of Chu’s teaching of inserting 1's into the shifter
118. We are of the view that the artisan would have
recognized the obviousness of making any number of the least
significant bits “1" based upon the amount of shift or
rotation desired. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 8 and 47. With
respect to claims 14 and 53 which are grouped together, the
examiner relies on the mask of Chu to render the invention of
these claims obvious [answer, page 6]. Appellants argue that
Chu does not form the mask as recited in claim 14 [brief, page
10]. We agree with appellants’ argument with respect to these
claims. The mask in Chu is used to modify one of the other
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007