Appeal No. 97-3400
Application 08/584,908
We shall therefore not sustain the standing § 103 rejection
of claim 5, or claims 6 and 7 which depend therefrom.
Turning to independent claim 1, in asserting the
patentability of this claim, appellant argues on page 6 of the
brief that claim 1
is patentable for the same reason that Claim 5 is
patentable. Specifically, Claim 1 calls for a picture-
bearing index print sheet where a non-picture area is
in the same relative location on the picture-side of
the index print sheet as the non-image area is on a
film medium to be held on the index print sheet.
This argument is not well taken. As appellant acknowledges,
claim 1 differs from claim 5 in that claim 1 is directed to a
film storing sheet comprising an index print sheet per se. While
we appreciate that claim 1 includes terminology relating the
picture and non-picture areas of the index print sheet to image
and non-image areas on an inferentially recited film medium, and
that this terminology must be considered in determining the
patentability of the claim, the film medium is not a positively
recited part of the claimed subject matter.
As noted above, the main component of Lowenstein’s motion
picture classification and indexing system is an article which
carries a series of chronologically non-consecutive views
occurring on a particular motion picture film. Figures 1 and 2
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007