Appeal No. 2002-1395 Page 9
Application No. 08/789,702
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "providing a
template behavioral description, wherein the template behavioral description models a
selected portion of the circuit design; and . . . instantiating a template call in the
behavioral description of the circuit design by incorporating the template call into the
behavioral description of the circuit design, the template call referencing the
corresponding template behavioral description." Giving the representative claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require defining part of a circuit and
incorporating a reference to the definition into a description of the circuit.
"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
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007