Appeal No. 2006-3352 Application No. 09/682,520 To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated by the references, we must first determine the scope of the claim. Our reviewing court states that during patent examination proceedings the PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The “broadest reasonable interpretation,” rule recognizes that “before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended as part of the examination process.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation rule “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571- 72, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The elements of claim 1 encompass: 1. A method for tracing the execution path of a computer program comprising at least one module including a plurality of instructions, at least one of said instructions being a branch instruction, the method comprising the steps of: identifying each branch instruction; evaluating each branch instruction to be one of true and false; and 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007