Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 12
Application No. 09/548,687
processor and a second processor." (Examiner's Answer at 12.) The appellant argues,
"This striping of data files and related parity is not the same as distributing data access
tasks between the first processor and the second processor." (Reply Br. at 5.)
1. Claim Construction
"[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim
language itself. . . ." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111, 1116, 72 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Moreover, limitations
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, contrary to the appellant's
argument, neither claims 6, 11, nor 19 recite distributing data access tasks. These
claims merely recite striping data across multiple storage devices. Because the
appellant admits that "Jadav is related to striping data files and related parity across
multiple disk drives," (Reply Br. at 5), we affirm the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 19
over Jiang and Jadav.
In contrast, representative claim 4 recites in pertinent part the following
limitations: "applying a striping process that distributes data access tasks between the
first processor and the second processor." The claim language itself does not recite
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007