Appeal No. 2004-0292
Application 09/726,369
“technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where
technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention.
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269,
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly, In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995), confirms the longstanding interpretation that the
teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with
knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession
of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the
patent does not specifically disclose certain features. Appel-
lants state in their assessment of prior art disks that they are
divided into tracks and each track is divided into sectors.
Appellants’ focus upon the use of the word “operation” in
the first paragraph at the top of page 122 of AHP is misplaced.
It appears to us that the microprocessor performs the noted
operation which may in turn be the simple initialization taught
in the initial part of the sentence or the actual completed
transfer operations that are stated to occur in the next
succeeding sentences. To the extent broadly recited in the
constructing clause of the two independent claims on appeal,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007