Appeal No. 2003-1316
Application No. 09/430,531
multiplexers is selected, then a no-operation signal is sent to the
other multiplexers in the plurality of multiplexers to prevent them
from passing signals to their outputs.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of independent claims
1, 8, 14 and 18 is sustained because Hillis discloses “the
conditional nature” of the claimed invention. The anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 7, 9 through 13, 15 through
17, 19 and 20 is sustained because of the lack of patentability
arguments for these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007