Appeal 2006-3123
Application 10/368,789
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds that Yu’s via checker
214 checks for a minimum number of vias by applying special via rules (See
Yu, col. 11, ll. 51-67). The Examiner notes that power checker program 100
and via checker 214 generate an error indicator when an insufficient via
array is detected (See Yu col. 11, ll. 46-67). The Examiner notes that Fig. 10
explicitly discloses errors based on via rules (See Yu, Fig. 10, Rules 6.1, 6.2,
6.3, 6.4, and 6.5; see also col. 8, ll. 9-11, ll. 34-35; col. 9, ll. 44-46; col. 11,
ll. 19-23, ll. 46-67, col. 12, ll. 1-34). The Examiner finds that Yu’s power
checker program 100 determines whether power and ground vias of the
electronic design violate via sufficiency rules. Thus, the Examiner
concludes that Yu fully discloses the recited limitations. The Examiner
contends that Appellants are arguing limitations described in the
Specification that are not claimed (Answer 5).
After carefully reviewing all the evidence before us, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for essentially the same reasons argued
by the Examiner in the Answer. In particular, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellants are arguing limitations from the Specification. Patentability
is based upon the claims. “It is the claims that measure the invention.” SRI
Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ
577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is
that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description.
Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248, 48
USPQ2d 1117, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Although the claims are interpreted
in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013