Appeal 2007-2219
Application 10/035,587
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 is not disclosed in
the prior art. More specifically, Appellant contends Huang fails to disclose
an embedded status because the tag of Huang is separate from the operand.
(Reply Br. 5-9).
The Examiner contends that in Huang the “resulting status ‘tag value’
[is] embedded within the ‘resulting floating point operand.’” (Answer 14).
Further, Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not
have been obvious. Appellant contends Lynch fails to disclose an embedded
status because the tag of Lynch is separate from the operand, and Appellant
contends there is no motivation to modify Lynch to yield the claimed
invention. (Br. 14-20).
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to store the
“result with its tag as a resulting operand” to quickly determine its status.
(Answer 7).
We reverse.
ISSUE(S)
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish Huang
describes “a plurality of operands each of which having encoded status flag
information” and a result assembler that “assembles an accumulated result
that represents a value and combines the encoded status flag information
from each of the plurality of operands” as required by claim 1?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013