Appeal 2007-3623
Application 10/035,747
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Huang US 5,995,991 Nov. 30, 1999
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
status information within the floating point operand as required by claims
1-54 because the tag of Huang is separate from the operand. (Br. 13-23 and
Reply Br. 5-9). Additionally, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to
address how Huang discloses the feature of “a control unit . . . receiving at
least one floating point instruction” as required by claims 21-26, 31, and 32.
(Br. 17 and Reply Br. 9).
The Examiner contends that in Huang the tag is part of the floating
point operand. (Answer 26-29).
Further, Appellant contends Lynch fails to disclose status information
within the floating point operand as required by claims 1-54 because the tag
of Lynch is separate from the operand. (Br. 23-34 and Reply Br. 9-13).
The Examiner contends that in Lynch the tag is part of the floating
point operand. (Answer 29-32).
We affirm-in-part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013