Appeal No. 1996-3391 Page 8
Application No. 08/160,573
+(B x C) would not, necessarily, equal (A + B) x C. However,
the broad language of the instant claims does not specify any
particular arithmetic function or any particular Boolean
function.
In any event, we find appellants’ argument to be
unpersuasive because the argument is based solely on Chu’s
Figure 12 which shows an ALU operation being performed on R and
S, and then the Boolean function being performed in the 2:1
multiplexer after the arithmetic combination. However, when
Chu describes Figures 13A and 13B, at the bottom of column 46,
Chu indicates that although the 2:1 multiplexer 494 is shown on
the exterior of ALU operation block 496 in Figure 12, that
multiplexer, which performs the Boolean operation, may be
“incorporated within each of the NLC 500a-500p” which are shown
as being within ALU operation block 496 in Figures 13A and 13B.
Therefore, appellants’ argument that Chu shows only the order
wherein the arithmetic combination is performed first, followed
by the Boolean function, is not entirely correct. Since Chu
suggests that the elements for performing both the Boolean
function and the arithmetic combination may be within the same
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007