1 Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
We agree with Appellant. Although the Examiner has
shown a multiplexer (or equivalent thereof) in the prior art,
and the concept of cell bypassing, the particular arrangement
claimed by Appellant is not shown or suggested in the prior
art. Claim 16 recites, “a multiplexor having first and second
inputs and an output, the multiplexor selecting data at one of
its inputs to appear at its output in response to a control
signal generated within the processing cell, wherein the first
input is coupled to an output of a multiplexor in one of the
at least one neighboring cell, the second input is coupled to
a local data source, and the output is coupled to a first
input of a multiplexor in one of the at least one neighboring
cell.” Thus, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 16, and
likewise claims 17, 25 and 33 which depend therefrom and
contain the same unmet limitations.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification."
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-
84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
1 14
1Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007