Appeal No. 96-1741 Application 08/160,111 is “0001" as recited in claim 8 [brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that Chu can provide a single bit of value “1" to the shifter which would meet the recitation of claim 8 [answer, pages 12-13]. Appellants reply that their inputs to the barrel rotator are so different from the Chu rotator that Chu does not make the claimed invention obvious [reply brief, page 12]. When the scope of claim 8 is considered, we agree with the examiner that the broad recitation of applying a data input of value “0001" would have been obvious to the artisan in view of Chu’s teaching of inserting 1's into the shifter 118. We are of the view that the artisan would have recognized the obviousness of making any number of the least significant bits “1" based upon the amount of shift or rotation desired. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 47. With respect to claims 14 and 53 which are grouped together, the examiner relies on the mask of Chu to render the invention of these claims obvious [answer, page 6]. Appellants argue that Chu does not form the mask as recited in claim 14 [brief, page 10]. We agree with appellants’ argument with respect to these claims. The mask in Chu is used to modify one of the other 12Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007