Interference No. 104,403
Rosenthal Preliminary Motion 6 for Judgment based on Inequitable Conduct–
Concealment (Paper No. 37).
Magee Miscellaneous Motion 8 for reconsideration of Magee Preliminary Motion
4 for Judgment against Rosenthal that the Rosenthal claims are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to set forth a best mode (Paper No. 141).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings by at least a preponderance of the
evidence.1
1. The intended purpose or object of the invention disclosed in the Rosenthal ‘226
patent is to provide a lenticular optical system in which a composite image is viewable
through a lens sheet from a first angle and an object or image placed at a preselected
distance beneath the composite image is viewable from a second angle (col. 2, lines 34
to 39).
2. Rosenthal, the junior party, testifies that he made a lens sheet on May 5, 1990,
which:
. . . had conic lenses on the viewing surface and on the
opposite side had a plurality of spaced-apart, raised parallel
portions with a composite image positioned thereupon with
indented transparent concave lenses in between which
permitted the passage of light. Thereby an object beneath
the sheet at a preselected distance was viewable through
the transparent concave lens portions. I, the viewer could
see the sheet appear as an opaque image material at one
angle of view and then from, another angle of view, I saw the
1 To the extent these facts discuss legal issues, they may be considered
conclusions of law.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007