Appeal No. 97-1057
Application 08/160,298
rotation desired. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 10 and 51.
With respect to claims 16 and 57 which are grouped together,
the examiner relies on the mask of Chu to render the invention
of these claims obvious [answer, page 7]. Appellants argue
that Chu does not form the mask as recited in claim 16 [brief,
pages 11-12]. We agree with appellants’ argument with respect
to these claims. The mask in Chu is used to modify one of the
other two inputs to Chu’s ALU, and is not used as the third
operand input to an ALU. The examiner has not indicated why
the mask in Chu would have been modified to correspond to the
third multibit digital input signal when the Chu ALU is
replaced by the Vassiliadis ALU. The examiner also has not
explained why a specific mask value as recited in claim 16
cannot be patented. The examiner has simply stated that any
mask value would have been obvious to the artisan. Although
the examiner’s conclusion may be correct in theory, it is not
supported by any evidence on this record, and appellants have
made a point of arguing the patentability of this specific
feature. Since appellants have specifically argued the
limitations of claim 16, and since the examiner’s general
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007