Appeal No. 1996-3626
Application 08/302,155
reference to the software package is the only disclosure we
find which instructs the hypothetical person of ordinary skill
in the art on what the claimed method embraces. We think the
disclosure at page 5, lines 23 through 25 of the specification
supports a finding that the nature of the program is essential
to understanding exactly what appellants are claiming. On the
other hand, if appellants are merely optimizing stagnation
flow relationships well-known in the art as exemplified by the
equations set forth on page 10 of the specification as applied
by the program, then, under well-settled case law, neither the
specification nor the claims need recite the details of
appellants' method to such a degree the specification or
claims become a blueprint for performing the claimed
invention.
SUMMARY
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is
reversed. We have made a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007