Appeal 2007-2270
Application 10/035,647
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not disclosed in
the prior art. More specifically, Appellant contends Huang fails to disclose a
resulting embedded status required by claim 1 because the tag of Huang is
separate from the operand. (Reply Br. 6). Appellant also contends that
specific features of claims 2-5 are not taught by Huang as alleged by the
Examiner. (Reply Br. 7-9). Lastly Appellant contends that Huang fails to
teach the limitations of claims 8-11. (Reply Br. 9).
The Examiner contends that in Huang the “resulting status ‘tag value’
[is] embedded within the ‘resulting floating point operand’” (Answer 14),
and that the specific features of claims 2-5 and 8-11 are taught by Huang
(Answer 5-6).
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. 15-21).
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 affirm.
ISSUE(S)
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish Huang
describes “an analyzer circuit” and “a results circuit” as required by claim 1?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013