Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 13
Application No. 07/828763
physical patch corresponding to a unique patch identifier.
Col. 11, ll. 26-37.
The appellants erred in reading limitations from their
specification into the claims. Comparison of Hoel’s
disclosure to the claim language evidences that the reference
teaches the claimed translating of a logical block number to a
physical block number. The unique identifying number or the
patch identifier of the reference’s logical patch teaches the
claimed logical block number. Hoel’s specifying of a physical
patch corresponding to a unique patch identifier teaches the
claimed translating to a physical block number. Therefore, we
find that the reference teaches the limitations of claims 16-
18. Next, we consider the obviousness of claims 19-21.
Obviousness of Claims 19-21
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of claims
19-21 by finding that the references represent the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007