Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
patent disclosure may not be used as prior art in a double
patenting rejection, the disclosure may be consulted to
determine the meaning of terms in the patent claim. In re
Avery, 518 F.2d 1228, 186 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1975). Following
this permissive analytical approach, column 2, lines 27-28 of
the earlier patent states that "[a] series of images are
carried on a continuous loop of transparent film." The image
strip 4 in the remaining parts of the disclosure and the
figures is not otherwise described. It is thus apparent that
the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 on appeal are properly
subjected to this doctrine. The showings of the image strip 4
in the various figures indicate that an opaque coating was
disposed on the transparent substrate to impart the noted
image in claim 17 on appeal and the images of the claims in
the patent.
On the other hand, at first blush the subject matter of
the light sheet of dependent claim 5 on appeal would appear to
have been encompassed by the recitation of "a cover ... having
a window opening to view said image strip" as recited in the
claims of U.S. Patent 5,442,338 thus meeting the limitation of
present claim 5 on appeal. Following the guidance provided by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007