Appeal No. 2002-2195
Application No. 08/988,616
isolated from CPU 2 during the test mode, is fairly considered a “microprocessor” within
the meaning of instant claim 67. Although Sawase refers to substrate 1 as a
“microcomputer,” the word is, broadly speaking, synonymous with “microprocessor.”
See, e.g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary at 750 (1990) (“microcomputer...
1 : a very small computer that uses a microprocessor to handle information 2 :
MICROPROCESSOR”). We thus agree with the examiner that the “wherein” clause of
the claim is met by Sawase.
We appreciate the differences between appellants’ invention as disclosed and
the disclosure of Sawase. However, the claims measure the invention. SRI Int’l v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc). During prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed
limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
We sustain the rejection of claims 60-76 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Sawase. We have considered all of appellants’ arguments, but are not
persuaded that the examiner’s finding of anticipation is in error. Arguments that
appellants could have presented, but chose not to rely upon, are deemed waived. See
37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be
refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, unless good
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007