Appeal 2006-2911
Application 10/005,551
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although Appellants argue claims 1-19 as one group (Br. 8) under a single
heading, we address each of the separate arguments with respect to: claim 1; claim
4, which depends from claim 3; claim 7, which depends from claims 5 and 6; and
claims 11, 15 and 16, which each depend from claim 1. The Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences considers the patentability of each claim argued
separately on appeal in light of the evidence of record. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), (ix).
A. Claim 1
Regarding the argued elements of claim 1, the main point of contention is
whether Daniels discloses a multiplexer dependant on selection data that is a
function of the most-significant bit of the representative set of least-significant bits
of the first binary operand. Appellants characterize a multiplexer as a “device that
has multiple input streams and only one output stream” and further state that “the
cited portions of [Daniels] do not correspond to a multiplexer or multiplexer
functionality.” (Reply Br. 4). Both of Appellants’ Briefs rely on a website,
www.wikipedia.com (Wikipedia), arguing that the graphic in the left column below
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013