Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted).
We begin our analysis by broadly but reasonably construing the
recited term “reconfiguring” in a manner fully consistent with Appellant’s
definition set forth in the Specification:
A reconfigurable circuit, such as a reconfigurable
digital filter or a reconfigurable digital Pseudo Random Binary
Sequence (PRBS) generator, is a circuit (perhaps with analog
components), that has certain relevant digital design
characteristics that are designed to be revocably modifiable at
the direction of a client.
(Specification 1, ¶ 0002).
Our reviewing court has determined that “the specification is ‘the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ and that the
specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the
claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1321, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(internal citation omitted).
In light of Appellant’s broad definition of a “reconfigurable circuit,”
we agree with the Examiner’s reading of the claim on the reference. In
particular, we find that Mittal discloses altering a power characteristic
applied to a device or component in at least two ways: (1) by reducing the
applied voltage, and (2), by reducing the clock rate (see Mittal, col. 5,
ll. 1-3). Because Mittal discloses a microprocessor and/or functional unit
that has certain relevant digital design characteristics that are designed to
be revocably modifiable at the direction of a client, such as power
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013