Appeal 2006-0016
Application 10/347,536
sufficiency of support . . . is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon 'reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at
that time of the later claimed subject matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v.
Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). "Application sufficiency under ' 112, first paragraph,
must be judged as of the filing date [of the application]." Vas-Cath,,
935 F.2d at 1566, 19 USPQ2d at 1119 (citing United States Steel Corp. v.
Phillips Petroleum Co., 865 F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that "it is important to note that the
claim language in question (the processor performing the blocking) was
added by amendment on 8/18/03. . . ." (Answer 14.) In other words, the
limitations that require a processor that, after requesting a Read transaction,
blocks transactions that collide with its transaction were absent from the
original claims.
Turning to the original disclosure, the Examiner has identified
"nineteen recitations of blocking by the node controller . . . not the
processor." (Answer 11.) Among these recitations is the one cited by the
Appellants in their aforementioned amendment, viz., "the specification at
page 56, lines 13-21." (Response to Office Action 6, filed Aug. 18, 2003.)
Like the other eighteen recitations, rather than describing a processor
blocking colliding transactions, however, this recitation explains that "the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013