Appeal No. 2004-1402
Application No. 09/383,478
knowledge that dynamic latches are “smaller, faster and more energy efficient than a
static latch.” (See answer at page 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion
and find that the examiner’s conclusion is not well based in the teachings of the applied
prior art and not supported by evidence in the record.
Appellants argue throughout both the brief and reply brief that the combination of
the two references would not have suggested an RNS adder having “a dynamic storage
unit coupled to the barrel shifter, the dynamic storage unit storing the output of the
[modulo mi ] barrel shifter.” We agree with appellants that the teachings of Ishibashi
with respect to the basic structure of a dynamic latch would not have suggested the
substitution of a dynamic latch for any static latch as taught in the adder in the AAPA.
(See also reply brief at page 5 for disadvantages of dynamic storage units.) Appellants
argue that the examiner’s rejection is also based upon hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention. (See reply brief at page 4.) We agree with appellants since we find
no evidence in the record to suggest the examiner’s combination of references.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 31
and their dependent claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007