Ex parte STONEHAM et al. - Page 6




          Appeal No. 96-0362                                                          
          Application No. 07/909,350                                                  


               Dwyer does not eliminate transverse curl across the entire             
          width of the film; according to Dwyer “some transverse curl still           
          exists.”  Column 3, lines 55-59.  Dwyer shows the remaining curl            
          at “F” in Figure 3.  We cannot agree that a reference stating               
          that “some transverse curl still exists” can be said to                     
          “eliminate” transverse curl.                                                
               Thus, we do not sustain this rejection.                                
                                     CONCLUSION                                       
               The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.  102(a)             
          as anticipated by Tamamura is not sustained.  The rejection of              
          Claim 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.  102(a) as anticipated by              



















                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007