Appeal No. 97-1057
Application 08/160,298
Chu mask generator would meet the claim limitations when the
Chu ALU is replaced with the Vassiliadis ALU. Claims 75 and
77 are grouped with these claims. Claims 37 and 78 depend
from claims 36 and 77, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain
the Section 103 rejection of any of these claims.
With respect to claims 38, 40 and 41, the examiner has
grouped these claims with the rejection of claims 34, 36 and
37, but the examiner has not specifically addressed the
features of these claims. Appellants argue that the examiner
has failed to point to any teaching or suggestion in the
applied prior art which renders the limitations of these
claims obvious. We agree. The examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the invention
as recited in claims 38, 40 and 41. Claims 79, 81 and 82 are
grouped with these claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Section 103 rejection of these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 83-97 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Chu, Vassiliadis and
Pfeiffer. Although appellants nominally indicated that these
claims were grouped with claim 42, this rejection includes the
additionally applied Pfeiffer reference so that the nominal
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007