Accordingly, we address van Engelen's arguments only with respect to van Engelen claim 4,
which is an alternative of the count.
There is yet another flaw in the arguments advanced by van Engelen. Although van
Engelen takes the position that the '558 application fails to provide support for Lee claim 4, with
or without incorporating by reference the '375 application, van Engelen fails to discuss the '558
application with particularity with respect to at least one of the features it alleges is not supported
in the '558 application. Although Van Engelen discusses the '375 application in detail, the
inquiry should begin with what the '558 application describes. That is the application for which
Lee was 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.
Dynamically isolated frames
Lee claim 4 (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
17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007