Appeal No. 2004-1597
Application No. 09/383,889
Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1854
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
As such, in determining the scope of claim 1, “We recognize
that there is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in
light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the
claim from the specification.” Comark Communications, Inc. v.
Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). In locating this “fine line” it is useful to remember
that we look “to the specification to ascertain the meaning of
the claim term as it is used by the inventor in the context of
the entirety of his invention,” and not merely to limit a claim
term. Id. at 1187, 48 USPQ2d at 1005.
Relying on the words of the claim and based on the
principles outlined above, we find that the claimed term “schema”
generally relates to techniques, such as Gzip, (specification,
page 3, line 6) or such as division of data into low entropy and
high entropy portions (specification, page 3, lines 20-23), for
compression of data. Furthermore, what Appellants refer to as
the definition of “schema” as “partitioning and reordering the
data” in page 5, although more specific, is also a generic
technique for compression of data which requires merely dividing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007