Appeal No. 95-1635
Application No. 07/928,703
puzzling as to why the examiner refers to this reference in
attempting to counter appellants’ argument with regard to claim
26.
Since there is no teaching of the claimed “arcuate wall”
having the required “inside surface,” as claimed, in either one
of Maeno or Ohmura, we also will not sustain the rejection of
claims 27 through 30, which depend from claim 26, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We also note that while we need not reach the limitations of
claims 3, 4, 17 and 18, because we have reversed the rejection
with regard to their parent claims, it is clear that none of the
applied references suggests, in any way, that the film supply
chamber and the film take-up chamber differ in size from each
other. Thus, even though the examiner may be correct in the
assessment that a supply chamber and a take-up chamber may,
alternatively, act as the other in a rewind mode and in a
picture-taking mode, the claims still require that the supply
chamber be smaller than the take-up chamber. Therefore, no
matter what mode we are concerned with, one of the chambers must
be smaller than the other chamber and there is no indication in
any of the applied references that this is the case.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007