Appeal 2007-0580
Application 09/839,000
portions that have changed from the Web site. Since the Specification
provides no details of how to download only the changed portions of a Web
site, it must be assumed that one of ordinary skill in the computer art
possessed the required knowledge to implement this feature or Appellants'
own disclosure would be nonenabling. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559,
1568, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Rather, the Board's
observation that appellant did not provide the type of detail in his
specification that he now argues is necessary in prior art references supports
the Board's finding that one skilled in the art would have known how to
implement the features of the references and would have concluded that the
reference disclosures would have been enabling."); In re Fox,
471 F.2d 1405, 1407, 176 USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973) (appellant's
specification "assumes anyone desiring to carry out the process would know
of the equipment and techniques to be used, none being specifically
described"); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
1569, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The disclosure in Exhibit 5
is at least of the same level of technical detail as the disclosure in the '491
patent. If disclosure of a computer program is essential for an anticipating
reference, then the disclosure in the '491 patent would fail to satisfy the
enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, First ¶.").
Claims 15-22
Claim 15 has not been separately argued. Whereas claim 1 recites "in
the event of an update [of the virtual channels], only updated portions of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013