Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
error by the examiner, we sustain the rejection of claims 7
and 16.
With respect to claims 8 and 17 which are grouped
together, the examiner asserts that Chu teaches a one’s
constant source to supply a barrel rotator [answer, page 5].
Appellants argue that insertion of 1's into the shifter of Chu
does not make obvious the specific digital signal whose value
is “0001" as recited in claim 8 [brief, page 8]. The examiner
responds that Chu can provide a single bit of value “1" to the
shifter which would meet the recitation of claim 8 [answer,
page 8]. Appellants reply that the prior art does not
recognize the problem and does not make the claimed invention
obvious [reply brief, pages 4-5].
When the scope of claim 8 is considered, we agree with
the examiner that the broad recitation of applying a data
input of value “0001" would have been obvious to the artisan
in view of Chu’s teaching of inserting 1's into the shifter
118. We are of the view that the artisan would have
recognized the obviousness of making any number of the least
significant bits “1" based upon the amount of shift or
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007