Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
examiner, a conventional page-out involves removing the
least-used page or a page no longer needed from main memory
and returning the page to secondary storage [answer, page
6].
Appellants did not dispute the examiner’s assertion
regarding page-outs. Instead, appellants argued that the
removal step of claim 5 differs from a “garden-variety”
page-out in changing the subset designation and deleting the
page from the TLB, noting page 15 of the specification
[brief, page 9].
The scope and breadth of the language of claim 5 does
not preclude the examiner’s interpretation which we find
reasonable. Indeed, if we were to accept appellants’
construction of claim 5, we would be impermissibly importing
subject matter from the specification into the claim.
Although claims are read in light of the specification, it
is improper to read limitations appearing in the
specification into a claim if such limitations are not
recited in the claim. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Intervet
America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12
USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)(“[R]eading a
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007