Appeal No. 1997-4116 Page 9
Application No. 08/589,826
The examiner’s reply follows.
[A]pplicant has cited on page 8, page 4, lines 11-17
of his specification: "mechanisms ... require the
non-preferred sub-increments to have good page
frames in corresponding positions to the page frames
containing fixed data in the preferred subincrements
to be copied"; this phrase indicates that an
addressable entity will be placed into a non-
preferred state because of its relationship with a
damaged entity. ... [T]his is required of the prior
art system or else reconfiguration can not [sic]
occur." (Examiner’s Answer at 7.)
We agree with the appellants.
"Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of
and are read in light of the specification." Slimfold Mfg.
Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d
1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565,
184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). Here, claims 1-3 and 5-11
each specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
identification means for identifying a damaged one
of said addressable entities and a selected one of
said addressable entities having a relation to said
damaged one of said addressable entities, said
damaged one and said selected one of said
addressable entities residing in different
reconfigurable storage entities; indicator means for
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007