Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
analysis as to why the presence of registers, as broadly
recited in claim 7, would have been obvious to the artisan in
view of the applied prior art. Appellants argue that Chu does
not show such a register at the output of the barrel rotator,
but this argument fails to address the obviousness of broadly
providing such a register. Appellants also argue that “claims
7 and 46 require storage of both the output of the arithmetic
logic unit and the output of the barrel rotator during the
same operation. Neither Chu et al nor Vassiliadis et al show
the claimed simultaneous storage of these two outputs in any
mode” [brief, page 8]. We agree with the examiner that this
argument of appellants is not commensurate in scope with the
claimed invention. We find nothing in claim 7 which requires
the simultaneous storage as argued by appellants. Since
appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error by the
examiner, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 46.
With respect to claims 8 and 47 which are grouped
together, the examiner asserts that Chu teaches a one’s
constant source to supply a barrel rotator [answer, page 6].
Appellants argue that insertion of 1's into the shifter of Chu
does not make obvious the specific digital signal whose value
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007