Appeal No. 2001-0149
Application 08/896,001
However, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must
first determine 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). In addition, claims are to be
interpreted as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 17 recite an “inter-
connect chip associated with each logic device” designed to
provide communication of information between logic devices in the
same row or column. Taking a reasonably broad interpretation,
claims 1, 7, 10, and 17 require the interconnect chip to provide
communication of information between logic devices in the same
row or column.
Upon review, the Examiner has not shown that Winlow
teaches an “interconnect chip associated with each logic device”
designed to provide communication of information between logic
devices in the same row or column as recited in claims 1, 7, 10,
and 17. Winlow teaches a system comprising a plurality of
programmable logic devices. However, the interconnection
structure as disclosed in Winlow comprises only of programmable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007