Appeal No. 96-1766
Application 08/218,822
of the actor inside the body suit. Note that claim language
must not be interpreted in a vacuum, but must be accorded a
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph as lacking support in the specification.
The § 112, Second ¶ Rejection
On page 8 of the answer, the examiner states:
The limitation of "said cartoon character whose
form is unrelated to the appearance of the actor" is
indefinite. That is, the metes and bounds of this
limitation can not be determined since the
specification fails to define or describe the
difference(s) that must exists in order for the
cartoon character to have a form that "is unrelated
to the appearance of the actor." In addition, it
should be noted that the specification and drawings
fail to describe or show the "appearance of the
actor," thus, the comparison set forth in the claim
is difficult if not impossible to determine.
In our view, it is reasonably clear from the
specification, pertinent portions of which have been cited and
reproduced above, that the unrelatedness as required by the
claim refers to a masking or obscuring of the personal and
particular features of the actor such that their personal
features are made completely invisible to the camera. The
specification describes that the actor is covered from head-
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007