Appeal No. 2001-0048
Application No. 08/497,481
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). The terms used in the claims bear a “heavy
presumption” that they mean what they say and have the ordinary
meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons
skilled in the relevant art. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v.
Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1201-1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817
(Fed. Cir. 2002). Furthermore, claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitation appearing in the specification are
not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858,
225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, for proper claim
interpretation, the starting point must be the words of the claim
which will be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears that the inventor used them differently. Envirotech
Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
A review of claim 3 reveals that the recited step of
selecting “a most favored runnable thread” requires selection
from “either a current thread” or “an affinity thread.” The
current thread and the affinity thread must further have the same
priority as a most favored thread. We find that Appellants’
specification merely mentions the claimed “most favored thread”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007