Appeal No. 1999-2702
Application No. 08/509,867
Appellant argues that Phillips does not provide any teaching as to how one would
2
provide a single instruction that specifies the N control lines. (See reply brief at page 3).
We disagree with appellant’s argument because we find no support in the language of
claim 1 concerning the number of control lines.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not identified any support in Phillips for the
examiner’s example in the answer at page 9 of the permutation of (A , A , A , A ) to (A ,1 2 3 4 2
A , A , A ). We agree with appellant that the examiner has not identified how the above1 4 3
permutation would be carried out by Phillips. Appellant further argues that Phillips does
not identify what the “spread” function actually performs. (See reply brief at pages 3-4).
We agree with appellant as we discussed above. While Phillips mentions the “gather”
function throughout and in an instruction at column 12, and mentions the “spread” function
throughout the disclosure there is no disclosure or definition of an instruction or function for
these functions. In view of the above, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102 of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, and 5.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claim 8, the examiner merely identifies that Phillips
does not disclose the use of multiplexers and that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use multiplexers in place of the
switches. (See answer at pages 7-8). We agree with the examiner that Phillips suggests
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007