Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
claim in the light of the specification, to thereby
interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a
quite different thing from reading limitations of the
specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of
the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which
have no express basis in the claim.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Here, appellants’ arguments relying on
page 15 of the specification are not commensurate with the
scope and breadth of the claim language. Therefore,
appellants’ argument with respect to this group of claims is
not persuasive of error in the rejection. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of this group of
claims.
Appellants argue claims 8, 19 and 28 as a fifth
group of claims [brief, page 4]. With respect to
representative claim 8, the examiner asserts that in Richter
it is necessary to perform the operation of changing from a
read-only state to a writable state in order to overcome a
page fault situation and continue with the accessing of data
[answer, page 7]. Appellants argue that the rejection does
not give the proper meaning to the phrase “forward progress
of a computer system” [brief, page 10]. The examiner
responds that the phrase “forward progress of a computer
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007