Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 15
bottom chamfers of different depths on the transparent covering
to change the thickness of the transparent covering above the top
portion of the frame. Moreover, we find the examiner’s
conclusion (answer, page 6) that it would have been obvious to
select appropriate coverings through trial and error, by trying
different coverings, or trying a single covering in different
orientations or angles until a best result is obtained, to be
speculation, unsupported by evidence in the record. From all of
the above, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of the invention set forth in
claims 12-15, 23, and 25-27. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 12-15, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rhodes and the admitted
prior art. The examiner's position (answer, page 6) is that with
respect to claims 1 and 20, the admitted prior art does not show
opposing tapered inner side walls or chamfered edges. As to
claim 3, the examiner's position is that the admitted prior art
does not show chamfered edges. To overcome these deficiencies of
the admitted prior art, the examiner turns to Rhodes for a
teaching of a camera having opposed inner tapered sidewalls which
support a sensitized plate on which the image is formed. The
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007