Appeal No. 2004-0909 Page 4
Application No. 09/053,398
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Sites teaches . . .
transferring contents of a plurality of registers associated with at least a functional unit
(arithmetic and logic unit or ALU which performes [sic] operations on the content
extracted from the registers, see lines 24-25 of column 28 in Sites) . . . the content . . .
defining a data structure including control words (instructions or op-codes) for the at
least functional unit (Appellant's claim 1 recites in line 8 that the transferred content
excluding instructions of the processor, the data structure as recited therefore is
immaterial)." (Examiner's Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "[a]n instruction
opcode is not the same as a control word for a functional unit." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007