Appeal 2007-2219
Application 10/035,587
“constitute a teaching [of] data within the floating point operand as
claimed.” Rather, Huang discloses that the tag (status info) stands separate
from the operand (result). (FF 1 and 2). The Examiner has not provided an
appropriate showing that the prior art Huang patent discloses assembling an
accumulated result that represents a value (data) and combines an encoded
status flag as required by claim 1.
On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under § 102(b). Since claims 2-3 and 5-47 are analogous or
narrower than claim 1, it also follows that those claims were not properly
rejected under § 102(b) over Huang.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Also, Appellant correctly points out the Examiner did not state a
legally sufficient basis for the rejection based on Lynch, as no evidence had
been provided to show that it was known to a person skilled in the art that
storing the result with its tag as a resulting operand results in quickly
determining its status. The Examiner has not provided an appropriate
articulated reasoning for modifying Lynch.
On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under § 103(a). Since claims 2-3 and 5-47 are analogous or
narrower than claim 1, it also follows that those claims were not properly
rejected under § 103(a) over Lynch.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013