Appeal No. 96-1741
Application 08/160,111
15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 depend from one of claims
14, 17, 20 and 23 and incorporate the limitations just
discussed. Claims 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63 and 64 depend
from one of claims 53, 56, 59 and 62 and incorporate the
limitations just discussed. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Section 103 rejection of any of these claims.
Claims 32 and 34 recite that the mask is formed from a
repetition of or replication of a pattern. The examiner
argues that the Chu mask generator meets this claim recitation
while appellants argue that the insertion of 1's in Chu does
not perform the claimed repeated digital pattern. We agree
with appellants that the examiner has not demonstrated how the
Chu mask generator would meet the claim limitations when the
Chu ALU is replaced with the Vassiliadis ALU. Claims 71 and
73 are grouped with these claims. Claims 35 and 74 depend
from claims 34 and 73, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain
the Section 103 rejection of any of these claims.
With respect to claims 36, 38 and 39, the examiner has
grouped these claims with the rejection of claims 32, 34 and
35, but the examiner has not specifically addressed the
features of these claims. Appellants argue that the examiner
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007