Appeal No. 1997-4051 Page 7
Application No. 08/479,245
the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file
history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Hoechst
Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38
USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hormone Res. Found., Inc.
v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563, 15 USPQ2d 1039, 1043
(Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Here, the appellant’s specification includes the
following statements.
Write-back caches, unlike "write-through" caches, do
not immediately write a modified memory word into
the main memory. Rather, the "dirty" memory words
remain in the cache and are written back into the
main memory at the occurrence of a predetermined
event .... (Spec. at 1.)
The following statement is also included in the specification:
“Under the write-through mode, DRAM 104 and cache 102 are
always synchronized ....” (Id. at 7.) These statements
clearly define the terms “write-back” and “write-through.”
Accordingly, the corresponding claimed limitations of a
“‘write-back cache’” and a “write-through cache,” should be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007