Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
We now consider the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Chu and Vassiliadis. Claims 9-11, 37, 40,
48-50, 76 and 91-93 are not separately argued and have been
grouped with claim 1. The examiner has pointed out that Chu
teaches an ALU which performs mixed arithmetic and logical
operations on three inputs received at the ALU. The examiner
indicates that Chu does not teach the claimed operations
performed only on the first and second inputs and on the first
and third inputs [answer, pages 4-6]. The examiner cites
Vassiliadis to teach an ALU which performs mixed arithmetic
and logical operations on any two inputs of a three input ALU.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007