Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 5
Application No. 08/974,971
by modifying the information indicating the size of the boot code
section,” as recited in independent claim 23. Appellant
additionally asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that DeRoo teaches
that the boot block size is configured in hardware with either
pull-up or pull-down resistors, and that since HUI 700 is
hardware strapped, it does not allow software reconfiguration of
the protected memory; i.e., that the software is disabled from
writing to define non-volatile sectors. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 7) that “[t]hus, DeRoo clearly does not disclose a
control unit that is configured to vary the size of the boot code
section by modifying information indicating the size of the boot
code section.”
We begin our analysis with a determination of claim
construction. Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the
prior art begins with a determination of the scope of the claim.
The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the
prior art. Claim interpretation must begin with the language of
the claim itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention
to appellant's claim 23 to derive an understanding of the scope
and content thereof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007