Ex Parte 4918645 et al - Page 5




         Appeal No. 2006-2217                                                       
         Reexamination Control Nos. 90/006,789 and 90/007,420                       

         controller 66 alone or in combination with decoder 70, and                 
         equivalents thereof" (Br9) and that the means for performing the           
         functions of "asserting a plurality of memory address control              
         signals for accessing a plurality of times the memory of the               
         replying agent" and "detecting a completion of the access to               
         memory" is "the circuitry within or associated with the memory             
         access control portion of the memory controller 66, and                    
         equivalents thereof" (Br9; Br10).  No circuitry is disclosed in            
         connection with the block diagram of the memory controller 66 in           
         Fig. 5.  This raises a potential question of whether the claims            
         are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for                
         failing to adequately disclose structure corresponding to the              
         claimed functions since the memory controller is the invention             
         and, unlike a block corresponding to a commercially available              
         unit, presumably would not have been understood by a person                
         skilled in the art to disclose structure capable of performing             
         the recited function.  See Medical Instrumentation and                     
         Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1213-1214,                  
         68 USPQ2d 1263, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  This is not the same            
         as enablement.  However, since claim 1 is an original patent               
         claim and claims 2 and 6 incorporate the subject matter of                 
         claim 1, the § 112 issue is not appropriate for consideration in           
         a reexamination proceeding.  See 37 CFR § 1.552.  It is proper to          
         note the existence of the issue.  See § 1.552(c).                          
              Since no structure is disclosed for the block diagram, we             
         assume that any structure for performing the claimed functions is          
         at least an equivalent of the "means."                                     
              There is a claim interpretation issue as to whether                   
         apparatus claims 1, 2, and 6 are directed to a "memory control             
         apparatus" alone or in combination with a data processing system.          
         Claims 2 and 6 share the limitations of claim 1, so we limit the           
         discussion to claim 1.  The preamble recites a "[m]emory control           
         apparatus for use in a data processing system having at least a            
         requesting agent and said [sic] replying agent electrically                
         coupled together by a system bus, the requesting agent requesting          
         access to a memory on the replying agent for storing and                   
         retrieving data therein over the system bus, the apparatus                 
         comprising: . . . ."  The preamble seems to indicate that what is          
         being claimed is the memory control apparatus and that the                 
         limitations following "for use in" are statements of intended              
         use, which only limit the claims to the extent that the memory             
         control apparatus must be capable of being used in such an                 
         environment.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.                  
         Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345, 65 USPQ2d 1961, 1965           
         (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("An intended use or purpose usually will not             
         limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do            
         no more than define a context in which the invention operates.").          
         The body of the claim is mostly consistent with this "intended             
                                       - 5 -                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007