Appeal No. 2004-0545
Application No. 09/510,569
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Finally, "[p]recisely how close the original description must
come to comply with the description requirement of section 112 must be
determined on a case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561,
19 USPQ2d at 1116).
Appellants’ originally filed specification, on pages 9 through 10 and 14
through 15, describe an operation whereby the data processing system accesses
a server data processing system through a network. We consider these sections
of the specification to provide support for the claim limitation of coupling the data
processing system and the server data processing system. However, we see no
support for the decoupling the data processing system from the server data
processing system upon completion of the hardware setup program.
The operation of the hardware setup program is depicted in the flowcharts
of appellants’ figures 4 and 5 and described on pages 15 through 17 of
appellants’ originally filed specification. The final step in the flow chart of figure
4, step S44, is described, on page 15 of appellants’ originally filed application, as
“ [t]he small program 34 executes the hardware setup program 31 on the
memory of the client data processing system 23, while storing the program itself
on the server data processing system 22 (stepS44).” The final steps in the
hardware setup flow chart of figure 5, steps S53 and S55, are described on page
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007