Ex Parte KOPPOLU et al - Page 37




                  Appeal No. 2005-1431                                                                                                                         
                  Application 09/442,070                                                                                                                       

                            application user interface style guidelines, which is specified in "The Windows                                                    
                            Interface: An Application Design Guide," Microsoft Corp., 1992, which is herein                                                    
                            incorporated by reference.  Specifically, in the composite menu bar 1003, the                                                      
                            groups are arranged left to right in the following order: File, Edit, Container,                                                   
                            Object, Window, and Help.                                                                                                          
                  '701 patent, col. 12, ll. 50-21.  We agree with the examiner that the only material this passage                                             
                  incorporates by reference from the Windows Interface document is the material in Chapter 5                                                   
                  ("Menus") that relates to the order of interleaving of the menu groups in the composite menu bar.                                            
                  For example, page 88 explains that "On the menu bar, generally File appears first, followed by                                               
                  Edit (if supported).  Help is generally the last menu on the bar," while page 97 explains that the                                           
                  Window menu "should be the last menu before Help."                                                                                           
                            As a result, the remainder of Chapter 5 and all of Chapter 9 ("Object Linking and                                                  
                  Embedding") constitute new matter to the extent they add anything to the disclosure of the                                                   
                  original patent (including the menu group interleaving guidelines from the Windows Interface                                                 
                  document) and thus cannot be relied on to provide written description support for any of                                                     
                  claims 40-50.                                                                                                                                
                  G.  The merits of the rejection based on the written description                                                                             
                  requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph                                                                                              
                            As explained in Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed.                                              
                  Cir. 2000), written description support can be either express or inherent:                                                                   
                                     Compliance of the '603 and '604 patents with the written description                                                      
                            requirement requires that the specifications of these patents describe the                                                         
                            inventions claimed in these patents.  Thus, for example, the 1990 application                                                      
                            considered as a whole must convey to one of ordinary skill in the art, either                                                      
                            explicitly or inherently, that Mr. Reiffin invented the subject matter claimed in the                                              
                            '603 patent.  See Vas-Cath [Inc. v. Mahurkar], 935 F.2d [1555,] 1563, 19                                                           
                                                                             37                                                                                





Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007