Appeal No. 97-3347
Application No. 08/302,864
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Dependent claim 2 (lines 3 and 4) sets forth a
transparent thin sheet having a “coverage of preferably 100%
in the peripheral region,” while parent claim 1 (lines 3 and
4) recites a thin sheet having “an opaque peripheral region.”
3There is no
uncertainty in our minds but that the word opaque denotes an
entity exhibiting opacity, i.e., an entity that is not
3The interview summary record of November 26, 1996 (Paper
No. 15) indicates that an exhibit was shown or demonstration
conducted. Since the application file includes a brochure
(HOLME PATENT A/S) with a mask therein, it is apparent to us
that the brochure and mask constituted the exhibit shown to
the examiner. At the oral hearing of April 7, 1999, counsel
for appellant had a brochure and mask which appeared to be
identical to the brochure and mask in the application file.
We understand the mask exhibit to reflect what appellants
consider to be the present invention. However, this panel of
the board pointed out at the hearing that the white peripheral
region of the mask exhibit was not opaque, i.e., the
photograph of the woman appearing in the brochure was visible
through the translucent white peripheral region of the mask
when the mask was placed against the photograph.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007