Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
Thus, Appellant argues, those skilled in the art do not consider the
term “reflective” to be synonymous with the term “visible.” (Br. 12; Reply
Br. 1-2.) For example, Appellant cites Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304
F.3d 1373, 64 USPQ2d 1676 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as a case in which the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered patent claims containing
the terms “reflective” and “non-reflective” in reference to surfaces of a
mirror lens. (Br. 12; Reply Br. 2.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. We can agree, for
the sake of argument, that some reflective items, presumably those that also
emit light, may be visible even when a light is not directly shined on them.
We also agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2) that objects such as stars may be
visible because they emit light.
However, the definition provided by Appellant for the term “reflect”
(Br. 11; Reply Br. 4 (citing www.m-w.com/dictionary/reflection)) does not
require a reflective item to be visible even when a light is not directly shined
on it. Rather, Appellant’s proffered definition supports the premise that one
skilled in the art would reasonably interpret the term “reflective” to
encompass items that obstruct the passage of light, causing it to change
direction, as well as items that throw back at least some of the light that
shines on them.
The enclosure containing Muenchow’s light source, switch, and
power source is “made as a continuous cylindrical tube of flexible
waterproof material” which has “[a] tubular lens [that] is built into and
protrudes from the sleeve closed end.” (Muenchow, col. 3, ll. 50-55.) Since
it is not entirely transparent, Muenchow’s enclosure obstructs, changes the
direction of, and throws back a sufficient amount of light to allow it to be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013