{"id":2820,"date":"2010-08-19T17:42:37","date_gmt":"2010-08-19T23:42:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2820"},"modified":"2010-08-19T17:42:37","modified_gmt":"2010-08-19T23:42:37","slug":"each-of-a-plurality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2820","title":{"rendered":"“Each of a plurality”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karen Hazzah noted on her All Things Pros blog<\/a> on July 21st, the results of the Ex Parte Jourdan<\/a> (Intel) appeal.\u00a0 It is\u00a0worth highlighting\u00a0 again\u00a0as it\u00a0concerned the language “each of a plurality.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Given the prevalence of this language (as well as the language\u00a0“each of the<\/em> plurality . . .”)\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0computer system claims, I think it will be a frequent\u00a0 point of contention in the future — particularly\u00a0during patent litigation.<\/p>\n

The illustrative claim at issue read as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

I<\/span>LLUSTRATIVE <\/span><\/span>C<\/span>LAIM<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1. A method comprising:<\/span><\/p>\n

assigning an identification number (ID) to each of a plurality of micro-operations<\/strong> (uops) to identify a branch path to which the uop belongs;<\/span><\/p>\n

determining whether one or more branches are predicted correctly;<\/span><\/p>\n

determining which of the one or more branch paths are dependent on a mispredicted branch; and<\/span><\/p>\n

determining whether one or more of the plurality of uops belong to a branch path that is dependent on the mispredicted branch based on their assigned IDs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Board ruled as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

The Appellants argue that “the cited claim language as a whole <\/span>explicitly requires that a separate ID is assigned ‘to each <\/em>of a plurality of <\/span>micro-operations (uops)’ (emphasis added).” (Reply Br. 2.) “[T]he PTO <\/span>gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'” In re Bigio<\/em>, 381 F.3d <\/span>1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt<\/em>, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. <\/span>Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from <\/span>the specification.” In re Van Geuns<\/em>, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) <\/span>(citing In re Zletz<\/em>, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Here, claim 1 does not require that the ID assigned to each microoperation <\/span>be “separate.” i.e., unique. We refuse to read such a requirement <\/span>into the representative claim. Assigning the same ID to each microoperation <\/span>in one of the reference’s instruction streams is enough to anticipate <\/span>the disputed limitations. Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, <\/span>therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that <\/span>Sharangpani assigns an ID to each of a plurality of micro-operations as <\/span>required by representative claim 1.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For\u00a0other issues that arise from use of the word “each,”\u00a0see these previous posts: [Link<\/a>] and [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Karen Hazzah noted on her All Things Pros blog on July 21st, the results of the Ex Parte Jourdan (Intel) appeal.\u00a0 It is\u00a0worth highlighting\u00a0 again\u00a0as it\u00a0concerned the language “each of a plurality.”\u00a0\u00a0 Given the prevalence of this language (as well as the language\u00a0“each of the plurality . . .”)\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0computer system claims, I think it will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2820"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2820"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2820\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2845,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2820\/revisions\/2845"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}