Appeal No. 95-3920
Application No. 08/151,938
calls the difference between Watts and the instant claimed
invention “apples and oranges.”
We disagree. We find no hardware in the instant claims
described with such specificity that a software embodiment, as
shown in Watts, would not be sufficient to describe the same
functions set forth in the claims. For example, we find very
little difference between mere rectangular boxes labeled
“activity sensor” and “delay timer” in Figure 1 of the instant
disclosure and flow diagram boxes in Watts labeled “determine
activity level” and “Decrease T (OFF) Interval” (Figure 1).
The software, or flow diagrams, in Watts provides the
artisan with everything he/she needs to implement the
invention described in the instant claims. While appellant
vociferously argues that the “abstractions” of Watts’ software
can not possibly provide for the hardware of the instant
claims, we note that other than labeled rectangular boxes,
appellant has shown no specific hardware. Boxes labeled
“timer,” “activity sensor,” etc. describe merely the function
which is to be obtained. They do not describe any specific
hardware being used to implement any particular function. It
is our view that from such a disclosure, appellant is in a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007