Appeal 2007-1469
Application 10/035,579
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to store the
“result with its tag as a resulting operand” to quickly determine its status.
(Answer 4). The Examiner apparently alternatively contends that the “tag
value is clearly stored within the operand.” (Answer 6).
We reverse.
ISSUE(S)
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish Lynch
suggests “a resulting floating point operand containing the square root of the
first floating point operand and a resulting status embedded within the
resulting floating point operand” as required by claim 1?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. The prior art Lynch patent describes that the “FPU [floating
point unit] core 94 uses the tag value associated with an operand to
determine whether the operand is a special floating point number.” (Col. 16,
ll. 62-65).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013