Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
different and do not operate in the same manner as the single
adder of the present invention. For reasons already discussed
above in connection with independent claims 1, 2 and 12, we are
not persuaded that the difference amounts to a patentable
distinction. Alternatively, the claim language that the adder
comprises an adder circuit having a carry function is so broad
that it reads on an adder which sends the most significant carry
bit to another adder. The fact that a carry bit exists satisfies
the requirement that there is a carry function. Note that the
broadest reasonable interpretation applies during patent
examination.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, the appellant argues that in
Comins the circuitry in workstation 10, which performs the
addition functions, is not an arithmetic logic unit in a
microcomputer. The argument is misplaced. In light of the
digital logic disclosed by Comins for performing the adding
function, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art to implement the function through a digital
microcomputer's arithmetic logic unit. The appellant nowhere
explained why it would not have been obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art to use a microcomputer's arithmetic logic unit
to implement an addition function. Note that 37 CFR
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007