Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
of storage (the BTHB) further strengthening the association with the executed
instructions.
Though appellant argues that Wisor “fails to teach or suggest ‘evaluating each
branch instruction to be one of true and false, and responsive to an evaluation of true,
pushing a unique identifier into a predefined area of storage,’” his argument centers on
the identifier not being unique, rather than the predefined area of storage [Brief, page 8].
We find, in Wisor, the predefined area of storage, and the unique identifier, as
discussed supra.
In the Reply Brief, page 4, appellant further argues concerning the term “unique”
indicating that, in Wisor, the sent messages cannot be unique, as the same “1” bit is
sent when two different conditional branches are activated. We certainly are guided to
derive the meaning of a word, such as “unique,” in terms of the specification “we must
look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the
prosecution history,” Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319, 74
USPQ2d 1184, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 2005) quoted in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied sub. nom., 126 S. Ct. 1332
(2006). However in the same Phillips case (Id., 75 USPQ2nd at 1329) we are further
guided that: “The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims
their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007