Opinion ID: 1188921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: table-1

Text: REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE TERMINOLOGY NOTES 22 OCCURRENCES CITES PAGE(S) access A >100 25-83, 128-164 address A >500 25-83, 128-164 block A >80 25-83, 128-164 boundary =3 14, 41 compress =4 23 data compressed =1 23 decompressed =1 23 frequency (FFT) C =7 33-34 graphic D >20 9-14, 214-230 image >50 50-55 information >100 THROUGHOUT input >200 THROUGHOUT memory A >400 25-83, 128-164 pixel >300 THROUGHOUT processor >50 85-98 quantization E >100 231-236 read A >50 25-83, 128-164 simultaneous >8 36, 45, 46, 50 smoothing =1 232 spatial B >20 15-24, 231-236 vector D >50 9-14, 214-230 video =8 77, 166, 168-171 weight F >100 162-164 write A >100 25-83, 128-164 J.A. 10832-34. In accompanying notes, Hyatt asserted that certain broad categories of terminology were disclosed in certain textual sections of the specification and in raw source code appearing in the specification. J.A. 10833-34. For example, in note A (associated with the terms access, address, block, memory, read, and write), Hyatt stated that Memory terminology; including memory access, memory read, memory write, and memory block terminology; is disclosed, for example, in two whole sections entitled MEMORY ARCHITECTURE and MEMORY BOARDS (Spec. at 25-62 and 128-35 and Figs. 6E-6N) and in two additional whole sections entitled BUFFER MEMORY and BUFFER BOARD (Spec. at 63-83 and 136-58 and Figs. 6W-6AF). J.A. 10833. Although Hyatt presented thirty-six pages of general argument that the written description and enablement rejections should be reversed, J.A. 10823-58, Hyatt did not separately addressand did not indicate where in the specification support could be found forany of the claim limitations the examiner determined lacked support, except for the limitation making a product, J.A. 10836-40, and the group of weight limitations. J.A. 10835. Hyatt made general statements that Table-1 and the table of contents of his specification indicated that support for the relevant limitations existed in his specification. J.A. 10827, 10831. Hyatt also argued that lists of twenty-nine publications had been incorporated by reference into the specification and provided enabling disclosure. J.A. 10848-51. Aside from the making a product and the weight limitations, Hyatt did not correlate Table-1, his table of contents, or any of the incorporated-by-reference publications with particular limitations. Although reversing some of the examiner's written description and enablement rejections, the Board sustained the written description and enablement rejections for seventy-nine claims in a July 2002 decision. J.A. 11638. The Board addressed each of the claim limitations relied on by the examiner. The Board rejected Table-1 as unhelpful in identifying written description support: We agree with the examiner that merely pointing to isolated words scattered throughout the specification does not describe the invention claimed as a combination of elements, functions, and interconnections, anymore than a dictionary provides written description support for a book where words are used in combination to provide a certain meaning. J.A. 11594. The Board even considered Table-1 misleading in that it indicated that the word quantization appeared in the specification, while the specification actually contained the % symbol and the arithmetic functions FIX(exp) and INT(exp). J.A. 11617. The Board nevertheless reversed the examiner's rejections of thirty-eight of the claims. J.A. 11638. The Board reviewed the entire specification, looking for support for each of the claim limitations at issue and found support for three of the limitations (such as one for a data decompressed video image input circuit generating data decompressed video image information). See, e.g., J.A. XXXXX-XXX. The Board also reversed one rejection because it was based on language not appearing in the claims (the weight limitations). J.A. 11602-03. For the other eight groups of claim limitations at issue, however, the Board agreed with the examiner that these limitations (such as generating two dimensional processed image information in response to the accessed blocks of pixel image information and in response to the two dimensional vector information) were not supported by adequate written description, and explained its reasoning in detail. See, e.g., J.A. 11604-06. The Board also reversed the rejections on the grounds of obviousness, anticipation, and double patenting, which are not at issue in this appeal. J.A. 11638. Hyatt filed a request for rehearing with the Board on September 30, 2002. J.A. 11642. In the brief supporting his request, he provided extensive new arguments and citations to the specification purportedly detailing where disputed limitations of each still-rejected claim derive written description support and are enabled. J.A. XXXXX-XXX. The Board denied his request for rehearing, holding that these new arguments and citations could and should have been presented during the original appeal briefing. J.A. 11805-07.
On April 16, 2003, Hyatt, now acting through counsel, filed a district court action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 against the Director. The Director filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing principally that the Board's decision to reject all of the relevant claims of the '702 application for lack of written description and enablement was supported by substantial evidence. Hyatt opposed the motion, proffering his own declaration as well as his briefing from his request for rehearing before the Board (collectively, Hyatt declaration) as purported evidence supporting his opposition and precluding summary judgment in favor of the Director. The Director objected to the Hyatt declaration on the ground that Hyatt failed to timely submit it before the Board. Hyatt v. Dudas, 2005 WL 5569663, at , 6 n. 11 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2005) ( Hyatt II ). Hyatt submitted no other evidence. The district court excluded the Hyatt declaration because it found Hyatt had been negligent in failing to submit it to the PTO during examination or in a timely manner to the Board on appeal. Id. at -7. The district court then proceeded to analyze the record before the Board and concluded that the Board's decision to uphold the written description rejections was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at -10. As the court found that no genuine issues of material fact had been raised, it granted summary judgment to the Director that Hyatt's claims were invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement (and considered the enablement issue moot). Id. at . The district court denied Hyatt's subsequent motion for reconsideration. Hyatt v. Dudas, 2006 WL 4606037 (D.D.C. Sept.30, 2006). Hyatt then timely appealed the district court's judgment to this court. We stayed this appeal pending the decision in a related appeal, Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2007) ( Hyatt I ). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C).