Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
We begin our analysis by construing the claim term “network
controller” by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“during examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.”). As pointed out by the Examiner, the Specification broadly
discloses “the network controller may be an intelligent peripheral installed
within a server or may be a network processor (NP) coupled to a server”
(Specification 4:5-7, emphasis added). When we look to the Specification
for context, we particularly note that the breadth of the recited term “network
controller” encompasses “a network processor (NP) coupled to a server”
(id.). Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has properly construed the
language of the claim in accordance with the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification.
Furthermore, we find the plain language of the claim does not require
the network controller to be integral to the server. In contrast, the recited
language merely requires “receiving a packet at a network controller of said
server” (claim 1, emphasis added). Therefore, we find the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position that the argued language of the claim
broadly but reasonably reads on gateway machine 140 that functions as a
network controller by modifying packets (i.e., selecting an alternate
destination node) for the purpose of performing dynamic redirection to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013