Appeal 2007-2219
Application 10/035,587
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “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.” We interpret
claim 1 as requiring: 1) a plurality of operands each of which “containing”
encoded status flag information, and 2) a result assembler that “joins
together the parts” of an accumulated result that represents a value and
combines the encoded status flag information. We construe claim 1 as
requiring a single result that contains distinct parts that are joined together to
form the result and which parts represent a value and encoded status
information.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant correctly points out the Examiner did not state a legally
sufficient basis for the rejection because Huang does not assemble an
accumulated result that represents a value and combines the encoded status
flag information from each of the plurality of operands. Contrary to the
Examiner’s contention (Answer 14), Huang’s “tag value” does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013