Appeal No. 2001-1482
Application No. 08/879,392
additional limitations that the front surface of the jewelry article has “surface
dimensions” and that the width of the empty space between the jewelry stone and said
surface is “smaller than said surface dimensions.” Claims 18, 19 and 20 in their current
form were added to the application in the amendment filed August 18, 1999 (Paper No.
13).
Our problem with appellant's independent claims 18, 19 and 20 centers on the
recitations in those claims regarding the “width” of the empty space between the jewelry
stone and the front surface of the jewelry article. We find nothing in appellant’s
originally filed specification that would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of filing of the application that the “width” of the space (19) or the
relative dimension of the “width” of the space (19) compared to the “surface
dimensions” of the jewelry article or front surface thereof were of any importance. On
the contrary, appellant’s specification conveys the clear impression that any space
around the jewelry stone would be adequate to achieve the desired visual impression or
aesthetic appearance.
On page 2 of the specification, it is indicated to be an object of the invention “to
provide a jewelry design assembly which creates the appearance of a space between
one or more stones and the surrounding supporting jewelry article.” In the paragraph
bridging pages 4-5 of the specification, it is noted that the mounting arrangement
including the space makes the stone (17) appear to be “floating” within the window
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007