Appeal No. 2005-2282 Page 13
Application No. 09/505,807
own scheduler. The absence of a single scheduler that controls both queues negates
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 3.
C. CLAIMS 4-6, 17, 18, 24, AND 25
The appellants argue claims 4-6, 17, 18, 24, and 25 as a group. (Appeal Br. at 9-
10.) We select claim 4 from the group as representative of the claims therein.
The examiner refers to "col. 8, line 50 - col. 9, line 5," (Examiner's Answer at 6)
of Woodring. The appellants argue, "There is simply no notion in Woodring regarding a
consumer registering data requirements and priority requests with a 'scheduler', much
less a scheduler that assigns the consumers to a queue based on the registered
requirements, as contemplated by the claimed inventions." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
1. Claim Construction
"[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here, claim 4
recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "each of the plurality of consumers
performs a registration process with the scheduler." Giving the representative claim its
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007