Appeal No. 2006-1450
Application No. 09/933,786
bit operation for the byte operation disclosed in Groves to
thereby yield the claimed limitation, whereby each of the masked
bits corresponds to a bit position of the shifted operand.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 21 and
22. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 21 and 22 over the Groves reference.
II. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 3-10,
13-20 and 23-33 as Being Unpatentable over Groves Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 3-10, 13-20 and 23-33,
Appellant argues at page 5 of the Appeal Brief that Groves does
not teach that each of the masked bits corresponds to a bit
position of the shifted operand. Appellant also argues that
Prioste does not cure these deficiencies. We addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we found that
the combination of Groves’ teaching with knowledge of the
ordinary skilled artisan would have rendered the claimed
invention obvious. Appellant also argues that there is no
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007