Appeal No. 96-3200 Page 8
Application No. 08/337,196
in which each of said plurality of program counters
is to be selected.
In any event, counsel for appellants indicated at the oral
hearing on July 15, 1999 that since the instant claims are in
“means plus function” language, 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6,
requires us to look to the instant disclosure for the disclosed
means and equivalents thereof which the claim language is
intended to cover. We agree, and so we find that the instant
claim language relating to “means for sequentially
selecting...” is limited to the structure depicted in instant
Figure 1B and “equivalents thereof.” We do not find any such
structure in either Watson or Lee that is equivalent to, or
even similar to, that which is shown in instant Figure 1B.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Watson and Lee
would not have made the narrowly construed subject matter of
claims 12 through 22 obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007