Appeal 2007-3623
Application 10/035,747
However, Prior Art figures 1-3 of Huang teach all the features of
claims 27-30, 33-39 and 44-50. See FF 3-11. Claims 27, 29, and 30 are
exemplary. Claim 27 – an operand memory register (item 12) and a
functional processing unit (items 14, 22, 24 & 26). Claim 29 – at least one
predetermined field (See FF 4). Claim 30 – without storing status
information separately (inherent).
For the special case of addition of the “zero” operand plus the “zero”
operand to yield the “zero” operand, the conventional circuit corresponds to
the subject matter of Appellant’s claims 27-30, 33-39, and 44-50. Thus,
contrary to Appellant’s ultimate contention, Huang does disclose the subject
matter of claims 27-30, 33-39, and 44-50.
Therefore, Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to this contention as to claims 27-30, 33-39, and 44-50. However,
because figures 1-3 of Huang fail to describe a “floating point instruction,”
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with respect to this
contention as to claims 21-26, 31, 32, 40-43, and 51-54.
Lynch
The Lynch patent parallels the Huang patent in that both append a
status tag to a floating point operand to improve on the conventional method
of handling special status operands. As above with Huang, Appellant
correctly points out that the appended tags of Lynch do not correspond with
the limitations of claims 1-54.
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with respect to the
rejection of claims 1-54.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013