Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
Based on this argument, appellants assert that claim 1 is not
suggested by the collective teachings of Chu and Vassiliadis.
In our view, appellants’ interpretation of claim 1 is
not commensurate with the language of claim 1. Claim 1 does
not require that the two operand functions be implemented in
any specific manner. Claim 1 only recites that the ALU
receive a control function input and that the ALU perform the
operations A±B and A±C. The ALUs of Chu and Vassiliadis
clearly receive an input function control signal, and
Vassiliadis clearly performs the noted operations as pointed
out by the examiner. Appellants are attempting to import
their disclosed preferred embodiment into the claim which is
not appropriate. Claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution before the Patent and
Trademark Office.
Since we have determined that the examiner has
presented a prima facie case for the obviousness of claim 1,
and since appellants have not presented a compelling reason to
find error in the examiner’s case, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and of claims 9, 10, 18 and 31-33 which are grouped
therewith.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007