Appeal 2007-0576
Application 10/025,816
array 10, not from eight different 9-bit words as the appellants
contend. . . .
(Answer 12-13.) The Appellants argue, "Table 8 is a clear admission that
each single 9-bit word can only either Read or Write and cannot do both."
(Reply Br. 3.) Therefore, the issue is whether Lo teaches a single instruction
specifying a sequence of testing procedures.
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step
analysis. First, we construe independent claims at issue to determine their
scope. Second, we determine whether the construed claims are anticipated
or would have been obvious." Ex Parte Tomlinson, No. 2005-0100,
2005 WL 4773715, at *2 (B.P.A.I. 2005).
IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Our analysis begins by interpreting the claim limitations at issue.
"[W]hen interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification
or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor." In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573,
1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"a self-test instruction specifying a test methodology. . . ." Claim 18 recites
similar limitations. It is uncontested that the ordinary and accustomed
meaning of methodology "is 'a body of methods, rules, and postulates
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013