Appeal No. 2006-1562
Application No. 10/720,948
adhesive layer. (Column 1, lines 7-10, Column 3, lines 34-39).
As explained below, Arnold’s patch has a sufficient “thickness”
to satisfy the claimed vision-interfering functions of
independent claims 1 and 10.3
Arnold teaches that her eye patch has first and second
sheet members (11 and 12, respectively) having a thickness
ranging from 0.1 mm to 5 mm (.004 to .196 inches). (Column 3,
lines 39-45). As shown in Arnold’s figure 3, the first and
second sheets are positioned atop one another with an adhesive
(13a) dispersed between them. Arnold also teaches that the
first and second sheet members preferably have the same
thickness. (Column 2, lines 18-19). Summing the thicknesses
gives an eye patch thickness range of 0.2 to 10 mm (.008 to .292
inches). Actually, as shown in figure 3, Arnold’s patch
thickness will be thicker than this summed range, because of the
additional thickness included by the adhesive layer 13a.
Appellant indicates in his specification that the “thickness
sufficient” to perform the various claimed vision-interference
functions is “one quarter inch or more”. (Specification, page
4). From the foregoing, Arnold teaches a patch having the same
3
3With respect to claim 1, Arnold’s patch placed over the eye of
a user would interfere with the user’s “ability to look at said
sporting object while attempting to control said sporting object
due to said thickness” for the reasons explained earlier.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007