Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
We now consider the rejection of claims 7 and 16 which
are grouped together. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
recites that a plurality of data registers receives an input
from the output of the ALU and an input from the output of the
barrel rotator. The examiner has provided a reasonable
analysis as to why the presence of registers, as broadly
recited in claim 7, would have been obvious to the artisan in
view of the applied prior art. Appellants argue that Chu does
not show such a register at the output of the barrel rotator,
but this argument fails to address the obviousness of broadly
providing such a register. Appellants also argue that “claims
7 and 16 require storage of both the output of the arithmetic
logic unit and the output of the shifter [sic, barrel rotator]
during the same operation. Neither Chu et al nor Vassiliadis
et al show the claimed simultaneous storage of these two
outputs in any mode” [brief, page 7]. We agree with the
examiner that this argument of appellants is not commensurate
in scope with the claimed invention. We find nothing in claim
7 which requires the simultaneous storage as argued by
appellants. Since appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007