Appeal 2007-2218 Application 10/035,595 Therefore, Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with respect to this contention. As to claims 9-14, 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 the level of skill in the art as demonstrated by Lynch is sufficient that one 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013