Appeal No. 95-4131
Application No. 08/089,320
Since the disclosed and claimed invention never mentions a
“single” FIFO, we are of the opinion that the examiner is reading
the claimed invention in a much too restrictive light. During
patent examination, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The examiner has
astutely recognized that a single FIFO does not possess
sufficient storage capability to store a whole program, and that
a FIFO does not have taps. The examiner has likewise recognized
that a FIFO type memory with taps would have to be implemented
using a FIFO memory at each tap. The program data from each tap
would then be read out in a first-in-first-out manner. Thus, we
agree with appellants (Brief, page 4) that the skilled artisan
“would certainly know to cascade a plurality of memories” to
properly implement a FIFO type memory with taps. The skilled
artisan would not have to resort to undue experimentation to
arrive at such an implementation. As indicated in Genentech,
Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364, 42 USPQ2d 1001,
1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 397 (1997), the
enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 only
requires that the disclosure adequately describe the claimed
invention so that the artisan could practice it without undue
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007