Appeal No. 1996-3391 Page 5
Application No. 08/160,573
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We now consider the rejection of independent claims 1 and
12 as unpatentable over Ing-Simmons and Chu. In accordance
with appellants’ grouping, at page 4 of the principal brief,
claims 5 through 8, 10, 11, 16 through 19 and 21 through 37
will stand or fall with the independent claims and independent
claim 12 will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we consider the rejection of claim 1.
At page 4 of the final rejection (Paper No. 4), the
examiner has set forth the rationale for the rejection,
particularly pointing out that Chu discloses a three-input ALU
consisting of two data operands and a mask with the Chu
apparatus executing three operand instructions with masking for
any function. The examiner also points out that Chu shows a
shifter for the R input to the ALU and a shifter for the mask.
Appellants argue that the combination of Ing-Simmons and
Chu does not disclose the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007