Ex parte Giangarra et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2000

08499988 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2000)

-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte PHILIP B. GIANGARRA and JAMES D. DWORKIN
________________
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 19, all of the claims pending in the
application.
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
-2-
The invention is directed to converting a floating point
number to a programmable fixed point number best illustrated
by
reference to representative independent claim 1 reproduced as
follows:
1. A programmable floating point to fixed point
converter, comprising:
a shifter having a data input coupled for receiving a
signal representing a mantissa of a floating point number and
an output for providing a fixed point number;
an adder having a first input coupled for receiving an
offset signal that programs the floating point to fixed point
conversion, a second input coupled for receiving a signal
representing an exponent of said floating point number, and an
output coupled to a shift control input of said shifter for
controlling shifting of said mantissa of said floating point
number to convert to the fixed point number.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Waggener, Jr. (Waggener) 5,161,117 Nov. 3, 1992
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Waggener.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
-3-
Each of independent claims 1, 6 and 11 requires an
“offset signal that programs the floating point to fixed point
conversion....” Waggener is directed to a conversion from one
floating point format to another floating point format.
Waggener is not concerned with a floating point to fixed point
conversion as is each of the claims on appeal.
The examiner recognizes this difference but still
concludes that the instant claimed subject matter would have
been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, over
Waggener because it would have been obvious “to program the
shifter (130) of Waggener’s floating point device for floating
point to fixed point conversion if it were considered
desirable for any reason to obtain a fixed point” [Answer-page
4, emphasis in the original]. The examiner bases this
conclusion on the capability of Waggener’s shifter (130) to
shift digits of the mantissa portion of the “floating point
number on the basis of the proper increment (claimed offset
signal)” [Answer-page 4].
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
The offset signal programs the resolution of the fixed1
point number wherein a low valued offset signal provides more
accuracy in the whole number portion of the fixed point number
and a high valued offset signal provides more accuracy in the
fractional portion of the fixed point number.
-4-
In our view, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The mere shifting of digits in
Waggener’s shifter does not, in our view, equate to the
claimed “offset signal that programs the floating point to
fixed point conversion.” Waggener converts a floating point
number in one format to a floating point number in a different
format and does this by splitting the floating point number in
the first format into sign, exponent and fraction components
and using the exponent to shift the fractional component, if
necessary. The exponent component is modified in the shift
control block 124 according to the new floating point number
format. Waggener does not disclose or suggest the claimed
offset signal that programs the shifter to perform a floating
point to fixed point conversion.1
Even if, as the examiner asserts, the artisan recognized
a desirability to obtain a fixed point number rather than
another floating point number, the examiner has provided no
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
-5-
convincing rationale as to why the artisan would have made
such a conversion from floating point to fixed point by
providing an offset signal in the manner claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of any of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the evidence
provided by the examiner.
We also note the examiner’s apparent reliance on U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,220,589 and 5,619,198 as examples of prior art
disclosing the addition of an offset value to an input signal.
To whatever extent such art may be applicable to the instant
claimed subject matter, we have not considered these
references since they form no part of the examiner’s statement
of rejection. Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
-6-
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ek/rwk
VINCENT B. INGRASSIA
MOTOROLA INC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
P. O. BOX 10219 SUITE R3108
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85271-0219
Appeal No. 1998-1507
Application No. 08/499,988
-7-