Appeal 2007-2270
Application 10/035,647
ultimate contention, Huang does disclose the subject matter of claims 1-5.
Therefore, Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to this contention.
As to claims 8-11, Appellant fails to point out any structural or
functional limitation that distinguishes these claims over the prior art. As we
noted in the claim interpretation above, no such limitations exist. Therefore,
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with respect to the
rejection of these claims.
Since Appellant has not separately argued the remaining rejected
claims, they stand or fall with claim 1 or the claims from which they depend.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The Lynch patent parallels the Huang patent in that both append a
status tag to a floating point operand to improve on the conventional method
of handling special status operands. As above with Huang, Appellant
correctly points out that the appended tags of Lynch do not correspond with
the limitations of claim 1. However, also as above with Huang, the
conventional background art of Lynch (cols. 1 and 2) does correspond to the
subject matter of claim 1.
Lynch’s background art disclosure differs from Huang in that Lynch
describes the functions to be performed (encoding, determining special
encoding, decoding, etc.) and fails to explicitly disclose specific structures
for performing the disclosed background art functions. However, Lynch
also specifically discloses that “logic circuits” comprise his instruction
processing pipeline invention. See Lynch’s figures 1-4. We conclude that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013