Appeal No. 1997-0917
Application 08/309,565
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523,1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Li discloses an array of
processors, each having a hopping circuit which is a switch
much like Appellants’ switch. The fact that Li has a
processor and a switch in each element does not detract from
Li meeting Appellants’ claim language. The mere designation
of one of Li’s elements as a switch since it contains a
switch, or a processor since it contains a processor, is a
choice of language that is consistent with the structure being
designated. Likewise, we find the Examiner’s designations not
inconsistent with Appellants’ claim language.
In the same vein Appellants urge “[T]he Examiner just
ignores the remaining elements of the selected processing
element, such as the ALU, sink register, and memory.” (Brief-
page 7.) However, we agree with the Examiner. Appellants use
the claim term comprising which is inclusive and fails to
exclude unrecited elements (answer-page 14).
Appellants argue that the structure of Li’s switch
differs from that recited in claim 1 in that Appellants’
demultiplexer is claimed as directly connected to the source
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007