Appeal 2007-2083
Application 10/035,584
parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957) (rejection not referred to in
the examiner’s answer is assumed to have been withdrawn). We conclude
that the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious. More specifically, Appellant contends Huang fails to disclose
an embedded status because the tag of Huang is separate from the operand,
and Nakano is not relied on by the Examiner to cure this deficiency.
(Br. 8-12).
The Examiner contends that in Huang the “resulting status [is]
embedded . . . within the resulting floating point operand.” (Answer 5:4-5).
We reverse.
ISSUE(S)
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish Huang
and Nakano suggest “a resulting floating point operand containing the
remainder of the first floating point operand and the second 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 Huang patent describes that “If the generation of
the result produces one of a predetermined set of special operands, a tag
generator also generates a tag having a predetermined tag value
corresponding to the produced special operand.” (Col. 5, ll. 43-46).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013