Appeal No. 2006-0750
Application No. 09/877,320
state, the control processor 204 determines the nature of the reported exception by
reading registers in the vector processor 206 and handles the exception as required.
Col. 15, ll. 48-59.
We agree with the examiner that at least interrupting the control processor 204,
and the control processor 204 reading registers in the vector processor 206 to
determine the reason for the interrupt, is within the meaning of “moving a message
along a message path that supports communication between the data processors” as
broadly claimed. 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 before the USPTO, 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 are not persuaded by appellant that the examiner’s claim interpretation is
unreasonable. Nor are we persuaded that the process of claim 1, or the step of moving
a message along a message path, is limited to a “software only solution,” as suggested
by appellant. “[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities
should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
We thus sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 1-37.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007