Appeal No. 97-1057
Application 08/160,298
appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error by the
examiner, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 50.
With respect to claims 10 and 51 which are grouped
together, the examiner asserts that Chu teaches a one’s
constant source to supply a shifter [answer, page 7].
Appellants argue that insertion of 1's into the shifter of Chu
does not make obvious the specific digital signal whose value
is “0001" as recited in claim 10 [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 10
[answer, page 14]. Appellants reply that their inputs to the
shifter are so different from the Chu rotator that Chu does
not make the claimed invention obvious [reply brief, pages 13-
14].
When the scope of claim 10 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
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007