Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
the knowledge of what has come before. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
1573, 1579 [35 USPQ2d 1116] (Fed. Cir. 1995). Placed in that
context, it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the invention in
the specification; only enough must be included to convince a person
of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention and to
enable such a person to make and use the invention without undue
experimentation. (Emphasis removed).
LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76
USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
We agree with Appellants and conclude that the level of specificity in
the instant Specification is sufficient to support the claimed “display
characteristic.” We find the instant Specification clearly identifies that
Appellants were in possession of the claimed “display characteristic.”
Appellants’ original Specification at page 10, lines 1-8 supports the
instant claim language specifically by the recitation of “some other KIN
characteristic” and “the viewer may configure the display location of the
KIN 54 based upon other characteristics.” While the specific examples are
limited in the Appellants’ Specification, it is clear from Appellants’
Specification that Appellants did not limit the possession of the invention by
listing the enumerated examples. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection
of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for a lack of written description.
ANTICIPATION
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a
claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013