Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
The examiner also explains why it would have been obvious to
the artisan to replace the Chu ALU with the Vassiliadis ALU.
In our view, the examiner has at least presented a prima facie
case of the obviousness of claim 1. Therefore, we consider
appellants’ arguments and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments.
Appellants’ first argument is that Chu does not teach
the claimed ALU for performing the operations A±B and A±C as
recited in claim 1. The examiner has acknowledged this
deficiency in Chu which is why the reference was combined with
Vassiliadis. Appellants argue that Vassiliadis also does not
provide this teaching because Vassiliadis teaches that two
operand ALU functions are achieved by forcing one input to
zero [brief, page 7]. According to appellants, claim 1
recites that the ALU combinations are achieved by control of
the function of the ALU and not by forcing one input to zero.
Based on this argument, appellants assert that claim 1 is not
suggested by the collective teachings of Chu and Vassiliadis.
In our view, appellants’ interpretation of claim 1 is
not commensurate with the language of claim 1. Claim 1 does
not require that the two operand functions be implemented in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007