Appeal No. 96-2693
Application No. 08/018,972
the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523,1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). While "only one" is not the same
as "at least one", we find that "only one" meets the scope of
the claim language of "at least one".
Appellants argue on page 7 of the brief that claims 1 and
7 both claim "reading ...from a hardware attributes storage
area", and that PKZIP does not teach where the CPU type is
being read from. The Examiner replies on pages 5 and 6 of the
answer that it is inherent in how PKZIP operates. We find
that the CPU type (i.e. attributes) must be stored in a CPU
storage area in order for PKZIP to "detect what type of CPU it
is being run on"
(PKZIP at page 3).
Appellants further argue that claims 1 and 7 both claim
"reading...at run-time...hardware attribute...by executing a
load hardware attribute instruction" and that PKZIP does not
teach or disclose executing a load hardware attribute
instruction. Appellants state "But no such instruction exists
in the 80x86 instruction set." (brief at top of page 8). We
find that no such instruction is required to exist in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007