Interference No. 104,403
(col. 3, lines 33 to 51) that a diffractive lens can be utilized to change
the direction of the path of light rays. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use such a feature in the invention
reduced to practice on August 14, 1992 as a known alternative to the
convex/concave lens to achieve the feature of the invention which was
reduced to practice on August 14, 1992 that an object beneath the
sheet could be viewed at one angle but not at another.
In view of the above evidence, it is clear that the junior party
reduced the invention to practice as of the filing date of the Magee ‘525
patent. As such Magee ‘525 can not be used as a reference against
junior party claims 1 through 8 and 11.
As each of the rejections posed by the senior party utilized the
Magee ‘525 reference to provide the motivation for combining the
various references, this motion is denied.
Magee Miscellaneous Motion 8
In this motion, the senior party seeks reconsideration of Magee
Motion No. 4. Magee Motion No. 4 sought a judgment against
Rosenthal that claims 1 through 8 and 11 which correspond to the count
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112 for failure to disclose a best
mode. This motion was denied in a Decision of Preliminary Motions
50
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007