Appeal No. 2006-0910
Application No. 09/725,821
the applied prior art references, and the differing solutions
proposed by them, any attempt to combine them in the manner
proposed by the Examiner could only come from Appellants’ own
disclosure and not from any teaching or suggestion in the
references themselves.
We have also reviewed the Masaki reference applied by the
Examiner to address the exclusive-OR circuitry feature of
dependent claim 16. We find nothing, however, in the disclosure
of the Masaki reference which would overcome the innate
deficiencies of the Ober, Childs, Schneier, Turner, and Batcher
references as discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion
that the proposed combination of references set forth by the
Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, nor of
claims 2-7 and 15-18 dependent thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 8 in which the Niehaus reference is added to
the proposed combination to address the claimed adder circuit
feature. As with the Masaki reference, we find nothing in
Niehaus which overcomes the previously discussed deficiencies of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007