Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
discussion contained in the specification of the present application on page 12, lines 8-
11: “For example, if a 24 bit width input port requests to transmit data to an output
port with an 8 bit width, the data will then be shifted or divided into 8 bit[s] for each
transmission. Since there are 24 bits total, the data will be transmitted 8 bits at a time
until all 24 bits are sent.''
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated, we must first determine the scope of
the claim. We note that claim 1 reads in part as follows:
“crossbar control data for specifying crossbar control information for transferring
data from an input port to an output port having different port configurations, said
crossbar control data containing control information for formatting bit length of
data from an input port to be transmitted to an output port having less width than
the input port.”
At page 12, paragraph 0030, lines 1-12, Appellant’s specification states:
“However, if the width of the input port is more than the width of the output port
(block 200), modification to the data is necessary in order to transmit the data to a
port with less available width. Thus, the width of the output port must be
ascertained (block 204) in order to format the data from the input port to data
configured for the width of the output port (block 206). The formatted data will be
submitted as the processed data. In practice, the data will be transmitted by
shifting the data bits to the width of the output port. For example, if a 24 bit width
input port requests to transmit data to an output port with an 8 bit width, the data
will then be shifted or divided into 8 bit for each transmission. Since there are 24
bits total, the data will be transmitted 8 bits at a time until all 24 bits are sent. This
can be done either through the use of a MUX or a shift register.”
Thus, the claim does require formatting a bit length of data from an input to be
transmitted to an output port having less width than the input port.
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, “[t]he ‘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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007