Interference No. 104,403
In regard to the remaining claims, in our view, these claims recite
differences from the basic invention reduced to practice on August 14,
1992, which would have been obvious at the time of the reduction to
practice in view of prior art. It is proper to consider the obviousness
between what is shown in a § 1.131 declaration and what is claimed
because possession of what is shown in the declaration carries with it
possession of variations and adaptions which would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 1178
n.5, 182 USPQ 614, 620 n.2 (CCPA 1974).
The recitation in claim 1 of a parabolic lens would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the invention
reduced to practice on August 14, 1992 and the teaching in U.S. Patent
3, 565,733 (col. 5, lines 51-75) that a parabolic lense may be utilized in
a lenticular lens system to correct spherical aberrations.
The recitation in claims 2, 5 and 7 of independently replaceable
composite images on the first surface would have been obvious in view
of the invention reduced to practice on August 14, 1992 and the
teachings of U.S. Patent No. 4,451,727 (“Rosenthal ‘727"). Rosenthal
‘727 discloses at col., 2, lines 41 to 54 that one of the drawbacks of the
existing lenticular lens systems with composite images such as the one
reduced to practice on August 14, 1992 is that in order to change one of
48
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007