Appeal No. 95-1635
Application No. 07/928,703
an inside surface thereof. While we can be fairly certain that
the take-up chamber is fashioned to accept an appropriate film
cartridge, e.g., cylindrically shaped 35mm film canister, there
is no indication within the four corners of Miki’s disclosure of
what a front section of the take-up chamber would look like. Any
contention by the examiner that such a front section would
constitute an “arcuate wall” having an “inside surface” which
extends forwardly beyond a flat forwardly open surface portion of
the front cover can only be based on speculation. Such
speculation has no place in formulating a proper rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
At page 11 of the answer, the examiner attempts to counter
appellants’ arguments by showing that Figure 3 of Ohmura somehow
shows the claimed “arcuate wall” and “inside surface...” First,
we do not agree with the examiner’s argument because there is
nothing in Ohmura suggesting the claimed “inside surface...”
Moreover, we would note that, with regard to claim 26, this claim
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Miki.
Ohmura forms no part of this rejection. Therefore, it is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007