Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
examiner’s mere identification of Blackard’s “hardware and
memory units of Figure 1" as the prior art teaching for these
claimed structural and functional limitations falls far short
of the burden placed on the examiner by 35 U.S.C. § 102 to
show how such limitations are specifically anticipated.
For their part, appellants argue, at page 7 of the
principal brief, that it is “necessary...to accord the
elements and their functions the meanings ascribed to them in
the Specification and Figures of the Application...” We
disagree. The examiner is at liberty to give the claims the
broadest reasonable interpretation when applying the prior art
thereagainst. The instant claims are not in “means plus
function” format which would invoke the sixth paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
At pages 7-11 of the principal brief, appellants argue
many distinctions between Blackard and the instant disclosed
invention, specifically delving into the particulars of
Blackard’s operation, such as graph analysis and memory
mapping, etc. However, up to this point, appellants have not
distinguished the instant claimed subject matter from the
disclosure of Blackard since no single claim limitation upon
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007