Appeal 2007-1517
Application 09/726,973
1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant
must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of
the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.”
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 § 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) (citation omitted).
Here, we find paragraph [0009] of the Specification conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that Appellants were in
possession of the invention as of the instant filing date:
[0009] In certain preferred embodiments, a user may be
assigned a unique identity that is linked to the personal
computer (PC) used to access the host web site. For example, a
user may visit business related web sites from a first PC at work
and entertainment related sites from a second PC at home. The
host web site of the present invention desirably assigns a first
cookie to the user's work PC and a second cookie to the user's
home PC. The cookie assigned to the work PC will track and
monitor the web sites that the user visits at work. This
information will be stored in a database maintained by the
server of the host web site. The cookie assigned to the home PC
will track and monitor the web sites that the user visits at home.
This information will also be stored by the server of the host
web site. The information stored about usage of the work PC
will have a different content than the information stored on
usage of the home PC. As a result, the user's experience when
visiting the host web site may be very different depending upon
which PC is utilized to visit the host web site.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013