Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 34
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is as of the filing date of the 4pplication relied on. Reiffin v.
Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 54 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (If claims to subject matter
in later-filed application are not supported by ancestor application in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, they are simply denied benefit of earlier filing date, not invalidated. Thus, for
purposes § 112, first paragraph, earlier specifications are relevant only when the benefit of an
earlier filing date is sought under 35 U.S.C. § 120.); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at
1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
a. Keagy's Corresponding Claims are Supported by Keagy's
Specification
Keagy's corresponding claims are originally filed claims in the involved Keagy'858
application. See Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 938, 15 USPQ2d
1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The original claims as filed are part of the patent specification.").
Similarly, Keagy Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 7A and 7B are originally filed drawings, each of which
depicts one or more totally internally reflected light rays. These depictions and the claim
language are consistent with the teachings of the prior art. Moreover, these depictions and the
claim language are consistent with the "well understood" meaning of the phrase "reflected
through total internal reflection."
Keagy's specification identifies the 3a and 4a rays of Figure 5 and the rays that bounce
off the surface 26 in 7A and 7B. Yet, Keagy's description of rays that bounce off the upper
surface of the platen in Figures 3 (31, 33 and 35) and 6 (52' and 53') is inconsistent with the
description of similar rays in Figures 5 (3a and 4a) and 7A and 7B. Thus, Keagy's specification
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007