Appeal 2006-2911
Application 10/005,551
of multiplexer fails to support Appellants’ position that the selective enablement of
one of two components to a common location in Daniels is different from the
claimed multiplexer (Reply Br. 3). Similarly, the Wikipedia graphic fails to
support Appellants’ arguments that Daniels does not correspond to a multiplexer
because the “the two possible outputs are located in two different locations,” and
that “there is no selection or control of the output of any signal at a multiplexer or
other selection circuit because each of INCH 12 and TEMPH 16 is coupled directly
to the bus ABH 10 (Br. 7; Reply Br. 3). Additionally, we also find that INCH 12
and TEMPH 16 in Daniels are both coupled to a single output location, ABH.
(Daniels Figure 7). Therefore, Appellants’ argument also fails to demonstrate how
directly coupling INCH 12 and TEMPH 16 to the ABH bus precludes selection or
control of the output.
Turning to the selection data, Appellants urge that the Examiner fails to
identify in Daniels any selection data being “a function of the most-significant bit
of the representative set of least-significant bits of the first binary operand” in a
manner consistent with any claim rejections. (Br. 8). The Examiner responds
(Answer 5) that Daniels' carry-out signal satisfies these criteria, citing the last
sentence of the abstract, which states that both, “[t]he carry signal and the sign bit
of the 8-bit operand control the mode of operation of the increment/decrement
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013