Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
27 which was grouped with independent claim 22. Accordingly,
claim 30 falls with claims 22 and 27 from which it depends.
The other dependent claims do recite the feature that
the leading edge of the window has a configuration designed to
minimize catching of the leading edge of the filmstrip.
Appellants argue that none of the references teach or suggest
this feature [brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that
Kogane, for example, teaches a device which performs this
function [answer, pages 5-6]. Although Kogane does teach a
feature which prevents the film from being caught upon
insertion, the feature in Kogane has nothing to do with the
configuration of the leading edge of a window. In other
words, Kogane performs the function of these dependent claims
but in an entirely different manner from that claimed. In
fact, we can find no teaching in either Kumanomido, Roberg or
Kogane which suggests the feature of the window as recited in
these claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection with
respect to claims 7, 8, 12, 18, 21, 28 and 29. In
summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-3, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22-24, 27, 30 and 31, but we
have not sustained the examiner’s rejection with respect to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007