Appeal No. 2005-2273 Page 6
Application No. 10/319,026
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, claim 212 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a vector transfer
instruction queue for storing load/store and move vector data instructions." Giving the
independent claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require a queue
for storing vector instructions.
2The appellant's Amended Appeal Brief (p. 2) inadvertently refers to the sole
independent claim on appeal as "independent claim 26."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007