Appeal 2007-0224
Application 09/754,785
for context, we find Appellant broadly discloses: “The software module may
have a number of components, including headers, sections of various types,
and string tables, described in more detail below” (Specification 6, ll. 27-28,
emphasis added). When we further examine the Specification for more
detail, we find Appellant explicitly discloses a table (i.e., “Entry point table
350”) that “may include a symbol index 351 that may reference an entry in
the symbol table 390” (Specification 7, ll. 24-25). Thus, we find the
Examiner has properly construed the language of the claim by applying the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(“During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”).
Therefore, we find the Levine reference does “[reorder] components of the
software module to remove at least some of the backward references,” as
claimed.
We further agree with the Examiner that Appellant is arguing
limitations that are not claimed. 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). 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). In the instant case, we find the argued “method of [sic]
placing a section header of an exemplary software module in a more
convenient location” is not found in the claim (See Br. 10). Because we find
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013