Appeal No. 96-1766
Application 08/218,822
to-toe in a body suit dyed with a color not visible to the
camera, and only the openings of the eyes, nostrils, and mouth
are exposed to allow the actor to see and breathe. Any
generic resemblance of the cartoon painting to a humanoid form
does not constitute a sufficient relationship with respect to
the personal and particular features of the actor. The
examiner has failed to appreciate a distinction between a
general resemblance to a humanoid form and particular
resemblance to the personal and specific features of the
actor. In the context of the rejected claims, reasonably
construed in
light of the appellant’s specification, the "unrelated"
appearance requirement concerns only a lack of resemblance
with respect to the personal features of the actor or actress
inside the body suit. Moreover, a resemblance merely by
coincidence or happenstance and not by design is still within
the confines of the unrelatedness recited in these claims. In
the context of this invention, actual comparison between the
cartoon character and the actor is necessary to determine that
the cartoon’s appearance is unrelated to the appearance of the
actor.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007