Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
from the Specification into the claims. Furthermore, we note that AAPA
discloses: “Terminal bridges 312 and 314 contain endpoint states of IOAs
302 and 304, respectively, and serve to isolate IOAs 302 and 304 from one
another” (Specification 15-16). Thus, we find that if IOAs 302 and 304 are
isolated from one another in Bridge Chip 308, then IOAs 302 and 304 are
necessarily (i.e., inherently) isolated from one another at PCI host bridge
306 (i.e., “at a host bridge,” as claimed) (Specification, Prior Art Fig. 3; see
also claim 10).
Turning to Appellants’ second argument, (i.e., that AAPA does not
teach a “host bridge to which the plurality of input/output units are
connected”), we begin our analysis by broadly but reasonably construing the
recited term “connected” in a manner consistent with the Specification
(claim 10). See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”). When
we look to the Specification for context, we find several instances where
Appellants use the term “connected” to mean an indirect connection. For
example:
The system is generally designated by reference number 300,
and includes a plurality of IOAs, for example, IOAs 302 and
304. IOAs 302 and 304 are connected to PHB 306 of a data
processing system, such as data processing system 100
illustrated in Figure 1, through a bridge structure that comprises
unique, specially designed bridge chip 308 [emphasis added].
(Specification 15, ¶ 3).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013