Appeal No. 2006-1562
Application No. 10/720,948
thickness sufficient to perform the vision-blocking function as
claimed in claim 1. Morgan also teaches using an adhesive to
attach the eye patch to the user. (Column 2, lines 18-21).
Moreover, because Morgan’s patch is placed over an eye, it is
placed on a portion of the face of an individual wearing the
patch.
Claim 1 does not prohibit a complete blocking of an
individual’s vision using the device. Additionally, we note
that Appellant’s specification states that in some cases the
device will “completely” restrict the individual’s field of
vision with regard to the sports object being controlled.
(Specification, page 1, ¶ [0001]). This teaching reflects that
it is reasonable and consistent with the specification to
interpret claim 1 as encompassing a device which completely
blocks the user’s vision. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372,
54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim 1 appears to be
anticipated by Morgan.
U.S. Patent 6,320,094 to Arnold (cited herein by the Board)
teaches an eye patch that appears to anticipate Appellant’s
claims 1 and 10. (Column 1, lines 7-10). Arnold teaches
applying her disposable eye patch to the user’s face with an
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007