Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
two inputs to Chu’s ALU, and is not used as the third operand
input to an ALU. The examiner has not indicated why the mask
in Chu would have been modified to correspond to the third
multibit digital input signal when the Chu ALU is replaced by
the Vassiliadis ALU. The examiner also has not explained why
a specific mask value as recited in claim 14 cannot be
patented. The examiner has simply stated that any mask value
would have been obvious to the artisan. Although the
examiner’s conclusion may be correct in theory, it is not
supported by any evidence on this record, and appellants have
made a point of arguing the patentability of this specific
feature. Since appellants have specifically argued the
limitations of claim 14, and since the examiner’s general
conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the record, we
do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 14 and 53.
Claims 17, 20 and 23 recite a specific mask signal in
a manner similar to claim 14. The examiner’s rejection of
these claims is supported in the same manner as the rejection
of claim 8. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Section 103
rejection of these claims for the same reasons just discussed.
Claims 56, 59 and 62 are grouped with these claims. Claims
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007