Appeal No. 2001-1482
Application No. 08/879,392
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of the Board has given careful
consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references,
and to the respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we find that we must reverse all of the examiner's
rejections of the claims before us on appeal because we are unable to clearly
understand the claimed subject matter due to language which renders the claims
indefinite. Our reasons for this determination follow.
Before addressing an examiner's rejections based on prior art, it is an essential
prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood. Accordingly, we initially
direct our attention to appellant's independent claims 18, 19 and 20 to derive an
understanding of the scope and content thereof.
Claim 20 is the broader of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
20. A jewelry assembly comprising:
a jewelry article having a front surface defining a window, said front
surface being substantially flat and continuous around and in the vicinity of said
window, and an internal frame disposed in said window; and
a jewelry stone set within said window by said frame, said jewelry stone
and said window being sized and arranged to define an empty space around said
jewelry stone, said empty space being visible when the article is worn and having a
width defined between said stone and said surface, said width being arranged and
sized to give a viewer the illusion that said stone is larger than the actual size of said
stone.
Claims 18 and 19 are generally similar to claim 20 but each sets forth the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007