Appeal No. 2005-1785
Application No. 10/164,853
activating a user interface at least in part by moving
a first user interface relative to a second user interface; and
providing illumination only in said first user
interface in response to the moving act.
THE REFERENCES
Vance et al. (Vance) 6,498,600 Dec. 24, 2002
(filed Aug. 18, 1999)
Kfoury 6,549,789 Apr. 15, 2003
(filed Apr. 28, 2000)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 stand rejected as follows: under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kfoury in view of Vance.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
In order for the appellants’ specification to provide
written descriptive support for the invention presently claimed,
all that is required is that it reasonably convey to one of
ordinary skill in the art that as of the filing date of the
application, the appellants were in possession of the presently-
claimed invention; how the specification accomplishes this is not
material. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007