Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 7
Application No. 08/974,971
meaning of a particular word or phrase recited in a claim. See
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d
1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 986 (1988).
What we are dealing with in this case is the construction of
the limitations recited in the appealed claims. 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).
We find that the claim language “wherein the control unit is
further configured to vary the size of the boot code section by
modifying the information indicating the size of the boot code
section” of claim 23 is not specific as to whether software or
hardware is used to vary the size of the boot code section. Nor
does the language of the claim preclude the varying of the size
of the boot code through the use of hardware. Nor does the claim
preclude the use of hardware for modifying the information
indicating the size of the boot code section. With this
interpretation of the claim in mind, we turn to the teachings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007