accorded benefit. Until it is determined what the '558 application describes, there is no need to
look to the '375 application. The issue of incorporation by reference is moot, if the '558
application alone describes an enabling embodiment within the scope of the count.
Since van Engelen has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the '558 application,
standing alone, fails to describe an enabling embodiment within the scope of the count we need
not determine if the Lee '558 application has effectively incorporated by reference the '375
application, or determine if the '375 application describes an enabling embodiment within the
scope of the count. Our discussion pertains to what is set forth in the '558 application and not
the '375 application.
DyLiarnically isolated frames
Lee claim 2 (an alternative of the count) recites a first frame and a second frame. The
claim recites that the second frame is dynamically isolated from the first frame. Van Engelen
argues that the '558 application fails to describe a second frame that is dynamically isolated from
a first frame (motion at 17). At the heart of van Engelen's argument is the meaning of the term
"dynamically isolated."
Van Engelen argues that the '558 application fails to support the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "dynamically isolated." The broadest reasonable interpretation of "dynamically
isolated", van Engelen argues, comes by way of definition for the terms isolated and dynamically.
Van Engelen argues that:
The term isolated is a verb which means "separate from a group or whole and set
apart." (Exh. 2016: Definition, page 956). The term "dynamically" is the adverbial form
of the word "dynamic", which is defined as being "[c]haracterized by continuous change,
activity, or progress." (Exh. 2017: Definition, page 574). Thus, in the context of the
claim language, the term "dynamically" is modifying how the second frame is "isolated"
- 12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007