Ex parte HOLLAND - Page 3

                Appeal No. 96-4043                                                                                                            
                Application 08/235,538                                                                                                        

                         The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                                                            
                obviousness are:                                                                                                              
                Okamoto et al. (Okamoto)                          3,865,678                         Feb. 11, 1975                             
                Tate et al. (Tate)                                5,158,118                         Oct. 27, 1992                             
                Mizuno                                            5,219,128                         Jun. 15, 1993                             
                                                                                   (filed Jun. 11, 1992)                                      
                         The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                          
                         a) claim 12 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of                                                             
                Okamoto; and                                                                                                                  
                         b) claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in                                                             
                view of Okamoto, and further in view of Tate.                                                                                 
                         Reference is made to the appellant’s main brief (Paper No.                                                           
                10) and to the examiner’s decision appealed from (Paper No. 8)                                                                
                and answer (Paper No. 11) for the respective positions of the                                                                 
                appellant and the examiner with regard to the propriety of these                                                              
                         Mizuno discloses a photographic film cassette having an                                                              
                elongated film-passage mouth 6.  The mouth has a pair of opposed                                                              
                inner surfaces carrying light-trapping members 7 and 8.  These                                                                

                         3The examiner has refused entry of the reply brief (Paper                                                            
                No. 12) filed by the appellant in response to the answer (see                                                                 
                Paper No. 13).  Accordingly, we have not considered the arguments                                                             
                advanced in the reply brief in reviewing the merits of the                                                                    
                appealed rejections.                                                                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007