Appeal 2006-2911
Application 10/005,551
Daniels discloses that, depending on the sign bit of the second binary
operand, the increment/decrement network selects either “the increment or
decrement mode” of operation for INCH block 12. (Daniels col. 4, ll. 66-68, col.
5, ll. 5-35). Subsequently, the multiplexer in Daniels, depending on the carry-out
signal, enables either INCH block 12 or TEMPH onto ABH bus. (Daniels col. 5,
ll. 47-58). As such, we find no support in Daniels for the Examiner’s position and,
therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 7.
With respect to claim 11, Appellants argue that Daniels fails to teach
“multiplexer circuit configured to operate as an exclusive-or gate.” (Br. 8). The
Examiner relies on Figure 4A of Daniels and characterizes elements 64, 67 and 69
as disclosing the claimed feature. However, the Examiner fails to explain how
elements 64, 67, and 69 relate to the disclosed multiplexer operating as an
exclusive-or gate, nor do we find any teachings in Daniels in support of such
position. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 11 cannot be
sustained.
Turning now to claim 15, Appellants point out that Daniels fails to teach
“wherein the operands are unsigned binary numbers.” (Br. 8). The Examiner
argues that the Daniels “system can operate on unsigned binary numbers.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013