ROSENTHAL v. MAGEE - Page 20




              Interference No. 104,403                                                                                     

                  first surface has a plurality of parallel lenticulated conic lenses.  The                                
                  second surface which is disposed opposite to the first surface includes                                  
                  a plurality of spaced-apart raised parallel portions which have a                                        
                  composite image positioned thereupon with indented transparent                                           
                  concave lens portions therebetween.  The concave lens portions                                           
                  permit the passage of light so that an image positioned beneath the                                      


                  transparent sheet at a preselected distance can be viewed through the                                    
                  transparent concave lens portions of the second surface.                                                 
                         The subject matter of the count may be used in packaging.                                         
                  When the optical lens system of the count is used in packaging, a                                        
                  viewer can view the image (such as advertisement or labeling) on the                                     
                  raised parallel portions of the second surface when the viewer views                                     
                  the package at one angle and views an object (such as the contents of                                    
                  the package) beneath the sheet at a second angle.                                                        
                                          Rosenthal’s priority case                                                        
                  Reduction to practice                                                                                    
                         In order to prove actual reduction to practice, one must establish                                
                  that a physical embodiment of the invention existed and that the                                         
                  physical embodiment included every limitation of the count and that it                                   
                  worked for its intended purpose.  Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326,                                      

                                                      20                                                                   





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007