Ex Parte Krishnamurthy et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1414                                                                              
                Application 10/453,559                                                                        

                Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed.                       
                Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096                         
                (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Compliance with the written description requirement is                     
                essentially a fact-based inquiry that will “necessarily vary depending on the                 
                nature of the invention claimed.  Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,                   
                1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting In re DiLeone, 436                       
                F.2d 1404, 1405, 168 USPQ 592, 593 (CCPA 1971)), quoted with approval                         
                in Enzo, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612.                                                  

                      Here, the Examiner maintains that:                                                      
                      The specification fails to teach determining a display characteristic of                
                      the one or more annotations associated with the digital image. At the                   
                      most an annotation's priority will determine the display order or                       
                      location of the annotations. The term "display characteristic" covers                   
                      much more than that which is disclosed on page 9. Color, intensity,                     
                      rotation, movement, etc are examples of display characteristics. Since                  
                      the claim specifically recites "display characteristic" then the claim is               
                      clearly covering display characteristics that are not disclosed by the                  
                      specification and claims away from that which is discussed on page 9                    
                      line 20 to page 10 line 9 of applicants specification. Therefore, the                   
                      application fails to convey that applicant had possession of the                        
                      currently claimed invention.  (Answer 3-4).                                             
                      Appellants dispute the Examiner’s requirement for the need to                           
                explicitly disclose all examples of an invention.  Appellants rely upon the                   
                following legal premise in the Reply Brief at pages 2-3.                                      
                      A claim will not be invalidated on section 112 grounds simply                           
                      because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples                    
                      explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language. See Union Oil                 
                      Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 [54 USPQ2d 1227] (Fed.                     
                      Cir. 2000). That is because the patent specification is written for a                   
                      person of skill in the art, and such a person comes to the patent with                  

                                                      4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013