Appeal 2006-2536
Application 10/611,127
claims. . . . The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the
properly construed claim to the prior art." Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
353 F.3d 928, 933, 69 USPQ2d 1283, 1286 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (internal
citations omitted).
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d
1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"in response to a detection that each of said at least two requesters has usable
access only to different ones of said active-passive pair of storage
controllers, selecting any one of said active-passive pair of storage
controllers as an active storage controller." Giving the representative claim
the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require responding to
the situation wherein two requesters have access only to different ones of an
active-passive pair of storage controllers by selecting any one of the
controllers as an active controller.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013