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
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007