Ex Parte Steele - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-1469                                                                             
                Application 10/035,579                                                                       

                                         STATEMENT OF CASE                                                   
                      Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of                      
                claims 1-37.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).                                   
                      Appellant invented systems and methods for performing a floating                       
                point square root with embedded status information associated with the                       
                floating point operand.  (Specification [002]).                                              
                      Representative independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:                      
                      1.  A system for providing a floating point square root, comprising:                   
                            an analyzer circuit configured to determine a first status of a                  
                      first floating point operand based upon data within the first floating                 
                      point operand; and                                                                     
                            a results circuit coupled to the analyzer circuit and configured                 
                      to assert 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.                                           

                      The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                            
                      The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                   
                appeal is:                                                                                   
                      Lynch              US 6,009,511       Dec. 28, 1999                                    

                      Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have                      
                been obvious.  More specifically, Appellant contends Lynch fails to disclose                 
                an embedded status because the tag of Lynch is separate from the operand                     
                (Br. 8-11).  Further, Appellant contends there is no motivation to modify                    
                Lynch to yield the claimed invention. (Br. 11-16).                                           

                                                     2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013