Appeal No. 2000-0703
Application No. 08/490,268
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of
the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the
invention." Vasilkov-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Finally,
“(p]recisely how close the original description must come to
comply with the description requirement of section 112 must be
determined on a case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52
F.3d 1035, 1039, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
Vasilkov-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561, 19 USP02d at 1116).
In rejecting claims 1 through 6, 8, 10, 13 through 20 and 24
through 26 under this ground, the examiner asserts (answer at
pages 3 and 4) that “[o]n page 10, lines 20-31 there is reference
that [a] part of the invention is modifying the program memory
stored in memory (46). However, there is not a description of
such modification within the specification.” (Emphasis original).
Appellants respond by pointing to Figures 6 through 10 and pages
12 and 13 of the disclosure for the description of the claimed
invention. Thus, appellants argue (brief at page 7) that
[t]hus, those skilled in the art would have already
designed inkjet printers with instructions for shifting
the paper incremental amounts and starting the printing
with certain nozzles in the printhead and are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007