Appeal No. 1997-4314 Page 4
Application No. 08/155,332
device” [answer-page 3]. Thus, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to make the block length programmable
by an external source so its value can be easily controlled.
The examiner also states that Takasaki “inherently” teaches an
input port by any line which connects the multiplier to the
input source. The examiner also realizes that Takasaki does
not teach an input port connected to a peripheral bus but
contends that it would have been obvious to connect the input
port to a peripheral bus “because this would let the
peripheral bus supply the multiplicands from any source
connected to the bus” [answer-page 4].
For their part, appellants contend that Takasaki does not
suggest a “programmable” block length value, as claimed. We
disagree. We do not countenance the examiner’s contention
that it is common knowledge that any input signal “could” be
programmed into a computer because this is not the proper test
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Merely because
something “could” be done does not, necessarily make it
obvious to do so. However, as broadly recited in independent
claims 1 and 9, “programmable” block length value merely
indicates the ability to input a block length value. As can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007