Appeal No. 97-4083
Application 08/422,933
Thus, the appeal as to claims 2 through 6 and 11 through 15 is hereby dismissed, leaving
for review the standing rejections of claims 1, 7 through 10 and 16 through 23.
The invention relates to the “framed display of artwork, especially via backlighting of
translucent artwork” (specification, page 1). Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative and read as
follows:
1. Artwork display means for wall-supportable translucent laminar artwork,
comprising shallow back-lighting means to underlie and back-light such an artwork,
transparent cover means to overlie and protect the artwork supported wall-parallel, and
decorative frame means to outline the artwork.
16. Display method for wall-supported artwork, comprising the steps of back-
lighting a laminar wall-parallel location for translucent artwork, diffusing light reaching that
back-lighted location, locating a laminar translucent artwork at that location, locating an
opaque border peripherally about that location, and outlining the artwork with multiple
decorative frame means.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Lawrence 2,588,545 March 11, 1952
Green 4,850,125 July 25, 1989
Bianchi 4,976,057 Dec. 11, 1990
The claims remaining on appeal stand rejected as follows:
a) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards as the invention;
b) claims 1, 7, 8 and 16 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bianchi in view of Lawrence; and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007