Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
Thus, the claim does require a synchronous circuit, and the
selection of an impedance from the driver circuit.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our
reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a
claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading
the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Upon our review of Appellants’ specification, we find that a
discussion of the “synchronous circuit” was provided at page 15,
lines 5-16, as reproduced above. Particularly, the cited portion
of Appellants’ specification indicates that the synchronous
circuit serves the function of monitoring the phase difference
between one or more internal clock signals and external clock
signal to thereby synchronize the clock signals. We find that
the ordinary meaning of the terms “synchronous circuit” is its
meaning to the ordinary artisan after having read Appellants’
entire specification. Consequently, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would find the term “synchronous circuit” to mean a
circuit capable of synchronizing signals of internal and external
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007