Appeal 2007-3623
Application 10/035,747
Appellant may sustain this burden by showing that the prior art
reference relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose an element of the
claim. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 recite a “floating point operand data structure” and
require status information be embedded within the data structure.
As to dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20, these claims fail to recite
further structural or functional limitations of the data structure of claims 1 or
16. Rather, each of these dependent claims merely indicate the origin or
intended use of the information in the data structure, indicate the numerical
value of the operand, or indicate what the data within the operand will
represent. Such claims do not further limit the data structure itself.
Claims 21- 54 require status information within a floating point
operand. However, unlike claims 1-20, the language of claims 21-54 does
not preclude the result (data) and the status information from being
represented by the same bits within a floating point operand. See FF 4
above for an example of a floating point operand whose bits result in a value
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013