Appeal No. 95-1515
Application 08/027,656
denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996), that for the determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had
before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellant.
The Examiner points to Vitou for a suggestion to combine
the apparatus for making a single photograph from two
photographs as taught in the second group of references
(Ramsdell, Papritz, Sayanagi and Murphy) with camera structure
for making a photograph of a photograph as taught in the
second group of
references (Vitou, Black, Mumpower and Wyller). In
particular,
we note that Vitou teaches in column 1, lines 15-19, that it
is sometimes desirable to reproduce one of more positive
images on the same frame of film.
After a careful review of the references, we find that
from the suggestion found in Vitou, those skilled in the art
would have looked to the teaching of the second group of
references (Ramsdell, Papritz, Sayanagi and Murphy) to modify
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007