Ex parte ADAMS et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1997-0339                                                        
          Application 08/330,768                                                      

          or at 32 and 33 in fig. 2.  Therefore, we sustain the                       
          Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10 and grouped                    
          claims 11 and 14 to 16 over Rickard.                                        
               With respect to claim 12, which has been argued                        
          separately, the step of “providing” said data signals and a                 
          select signal to a multiplexer can be seen from fig. 1 of                   
          Rickard. Keeping in mind that claim 12, like claim 10 does not              
          exclude the locally generated complement signal, fig. 1                     
          clearly shows a data signal 16 and its complement 18 are being              
          provided to multiplexer 20 and a select signal  24 is also                  
          being provide to said multiplexer.                                          

          Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12                 
          over Rickard.                                                               
               Regarding claim 13, another separately argued claim,                   
          Appellants’ thrust of the argument is the same as before,                   
          i.e., Rickard [brief, page 13] only teaches selecting from                  
          among a data signal and its locally generated inverse.  As                  
          before, we find that claim does not exclude by explicit                     
          recitation the locally generated inverse signal as being the                
          claimed complement data signal.  Therefore, we sustain the                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007