Appeal No. 2000-1204
Application No. 08/786,818
found it obvious “to provide Rose et al. with an AND gate in
place of the LUT G for providing the AND logic to the CMUX.”
To the contrary, it appears that the LUT G performs an
arithmetic multiplication function, as opposed to a logical
ANDing function, when it “performs the calculation a0b1”
(column 3, lines 23 and 24; Figure 4a). In the absence of
such evidence, the examiner has not presented a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims
1 and 3 is reversed. The obviousness rejection of claims 4
and
7 through 10 is likewise reversed because the multiplexer
teachings of New do not cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Rose and the examiner’s finding of obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007