Appeal 2007-0915
Application 10/764,946
1 be construed as they would be understood by those skilled in the art. See
2 Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. B.P. Chems., Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38
3 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
4 E. Analysis
5 Claim 1, when properly interpreted, requires selection of a command
6 to be executed based on at least one of (1) an optimized throughput benefit,
7 which is determined based at least in part on a pipe length, or (2) an
8 optimized operation rate benefit (FF 2). Claim 1 does not require selection
9 of the command based on both an optimized throughput benefit and an
10 optimized rate benefit. Applicants apparently agree with this interpretation
11 (FFs 4 and 5).
12 A reference that describes either an optimized throughput benefit
13 (determined based at least in part on a pipe length) or an optimized operation
14 rate benefit meets the optimized limitation.
15 Applicants’ arguments are with respect to the “optimized throughput
16 benefit” limitation, e.g., whether Clegg describes an optimized throughput
17 benefit that is determined based on pipe length (FF 9). Applicants are silent
18 with respect to whether Clegg describes an “optimized operation rate
19 benefit.” Since Applicants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the
20 Examiner’s findings that Clegg describes an “optimized operation rate
21 benefit” (FF 7) are erroneous, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is
22 affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013