Appeal No. 2004-1020
Application No. 09/486,908
how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a ‘data
storage device’” (reply brief-page 2). Yet, appellant never
explains why the skilled artisan would not consider a plurality
of combined elements a “device” or why a data storage device
cannot include a main memory module, an I/O module separate
therefrom, and a bus therebetween to permit communication between
these two entities. After all, many “devices” are made up of a
composite of individual elements. Therefore, we find it quite
reasonable that a “data storage device” may comprise other
elements, such as a main memory, an I/O module, and a bus
therebetween, especially where the instant claims do not preclude
the device from comprising these elements.
Appellant contends, at page 4 of the reply brief, that the
term, “data storage device” is defined in the specification as
being a “program memory”, and not some aggregation of computer
component devices.
First, we note that appellant has not indicated exactly
where, in the specification, such a definition can be found.
But, even so, where, as here, the claimed term is clear, it is
given its plain and ordinary meaning. It is not apparent that a
separate meaning is intended, and it is not necessary to refer to
the specification for a meaning other than the plain and ordinary
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007