Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated by the references, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. Our reviewing court states that during patent
examination proceedings the PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation during patent prosecution. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The “broadest reasonable interpretation,” rule recognizes
that “before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended as part of the
examination process.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d
1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, a patent applicant has the opportunity and
responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the
application. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation rule “serves the public interest by
reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is
justified.” In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-
72, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
The elements of claim 1 encompass:
1. A method for tracing the execution path of a computer program comprising at
least one module including a plurality of instructions, at least one of said instructions
being a branch instruction, the method comprising the steps of:
identifying each branch instruction;
evaluating each branch instruction to be one of true and false; and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007