REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Moyer DIXON 101/103(a) PREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

Here, the processor recited in claim 1 is programmed to process data processing instructions in a particular way, i.e., forming an immediate value/operand of 32 bits with only one instruction (FF 1). Therefore, we conclude that the processor claimed in claim 1 is a “particular machine” within the meaning of the M/T test. Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 satisfies the machine prong of the M/T test. 1

1 We do not need to go through the transformation prong of the M/T test after the machine prong of M/T test is passed.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Blair et al BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.

Ex Parte Chang et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte van't Hooft GREEN 112(1)/103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD

The Examiner must therefore “determine[] the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2005) (emphasis added) (quoting In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, “[c]laims are not to be read in a vacuum[;] while it is true they are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, their terms still have to be given the meaning called for by the specification of which they form a part.” In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984 (CCPA 1974).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pogue et al MARTIN 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.