Appeal 2006-0016
Application 10/347,536
In addressing the issue, the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First,
we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claim had sufficient support.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue.
Claim 37 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "abstaining, by
said processor, from going critical by blocking transactions that collide with
said Read transaction from being received by said processor during
processing of said Read transaction. . . ." When the Appellants added these
limitations to the claim, they interpreted the limitations to mean that "[t]he
processor that requested the Read transaction then abstains from going
critical by blocking transactions that collide with the Read transaction during
the processing of the Read transaction." (Response to Office Action 6, filed
Aug. 18, 2003.) Likewise, the Examiner interpreted these limitations to
require that "the processor block[s] colliding transactions." (Answer 3.)
In light of the interpretation shared by the Appellants and the Examiner, the
limitations require a processor that, after requesting a Read transaction,
blocks transactions that collide with its transaction.
B. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION DETERMINATION
"[C]ompliance with the 'written description' requirement of ' 112 is a
question of fact. . . ." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563,
19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d
1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Utter v. Hiraga, 845
F.2d 993, 998, 6 USPQ2d 1709, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). "[T]he test for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013