1 Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983). With regard to the rejection of independent
claim 3, Appellant argues:
Neither of the Holsztynski ‘019 and ‘474
patents can be relied upon as an anticipating
reference under section 102 because neither
discloses an ALU that produces a single signal that
is capable of alternatively supplying a CARRY or a
BORROW signal in dependence on the value of a
control signal. (Emphasis added.) (Brief-page 23.)
The Examiner’s response on page 10 of the Answer
disputes the label ALU in claim 3, “implying NOT an Arithmetic
Logic Unit but an arithmetic unit such as an adder.” However,
this does not address the limitation of “the output [of the
ALU] selectively representing either a carry or a borrow
result...in response to a first control signal received by the
control means.” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 3.
Nowhere does the Examiner address this limitation. Thus,
although Holsztynski et al. does show ALU 110 in Figure 4(a),
it does not show the implementation claimed by Appellant and
depicted as ALU 444 in Figure 4, with the carry/borrow select
signal CW(21). For this reason, we will not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
61
Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007