Appeal No. 2002-0490 Page 5
Application No. 09/152,751
Cir. 1987). "In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered
on the language of the claims themselves. . . ." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2).
Here, independent claim 16 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"positioning a check instruction after the dismissible load instruction in the stream of
executable instructions to determine if an exception should have occurred on the load."
Independent claims 20 and 24 specify in pertinent part similar limitations. Focussing
on the language of the claims, we join the appellant in being "puzzled at the assertion in
the Examiner's Answer that the check instruction of Appellant's invention as claimed is
actually an unclaimed element." (Reply Br. at 4.) To the contrary, the limitations
require positioning a check instruction after a dismissible load instruction in a stream of
executable instructions and using the check instruction to determine if an exception
should have occurred on an associated load.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007