Appeal No. 95-1635
Application No. 07/928,703
and without some suggestion of the claimed “four flat sides...,”
an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be
sustained.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we also will not sustain
the rejection of claims 2 through 7, 9 through 12 and 16 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the same references.
Turning now to independent claim 26, we also will not
sustain the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Miki.
While we note, again that the claim requires an improvement
in “a lens-fitted photographic film unit” while Miki is not
directed to such a unit, appellants do not appear to argue this
limitation and we do not base our decision thereon.
Claim 26 does, however, require that the film take-up
chamber has “a front section constituted by an arcuate wall, of
which an inside surface extends forwardly beyond a flat forwardly
open surface portion of said front cover.” While Miki’s Figure 1
does, indeed, disclose a grip projection located in front of the
film take-up chamber and a relatively flat portion located in
front of an exposure chamber and film supply chamber, there is
absolutely no disclosure of the shape of the take-up chamber or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007