Appeal 2007-2083
Application 10/035,584
ANALYSIS
Appellant correctly points out the Examiner did not state a legally
sufficient basis for the rejection because Huang does not embed the status in
the operand. Contrary to the Examiner’s contention (Answer 12) Huang
does not teach that “the floating-point operand [is composed] of the
associated tag and the floating-point value.” Rather, Huang discloses that
the tag stands separate from the operand. (FF 1 and 2). The Examiner has
not provided an appropriate showing that the content of the prior art includes
an operand with both a remainder (data) and an embedded status as required
by claim 1.
On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under § 103(a). Since claims 2-37 are analogous or narrower than
claim 1, it also follows that those claims were not properly rejected under
§ 103(a) over Huang and Nakano.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-37 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Huang and
Nakano.
(2) On this record, claims 1-37 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013