Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 10
As stated by the court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “[[t]he name of the
game is the claim.” Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations 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). Claim 1 recites “means for inserting said
Execution Trace Facility into the code of the program in a
disabled mode, means for recompiling said program after said
Execute Trace Facility is inserted into said code of the said
program, and means for enabling said Execution Trace Facility to
restart said program and detect and correct said malfunction only
in response to a detection that a malfunction of said program has
occurred.”
From our review of Borchardt, we find that when a programmer
debugs a program, the programmer uses a test scenario designed to
force as many as possible logic paths. After inputting the test
scenario, the programmer decides if use of the trace facility is
desired. If desired, the trace facility becomes active. The
initial trace facility options (filtering criteria) are input at
this time by the programmer. Upon setting the criteria the trace
facility is ready for implementation (col. 3, lines 33-67). The
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007