Appeal No. 96-1457
Application No. 08/098,165
being unpatentable over Cummins in view of Ohmura, Van Allen and
Taylor.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cummins in view of Ohmura and Tsuchida.
Claims 21 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cummins in view of Van Allen and Taylor.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cummins.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 24 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the rejection of claim 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the rejection of claims 21 through 23
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the rejection of claims
1 through 6, 8 through 10, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning first to the lack of enablement rejection, the
examiner indicates (Answer, pages 8 and 9) that “[i]t is not
understood how a plurality of viewfinder apertures can be
provided since no corresponding apertures or holes are provided
in the web 56 so that the user can see through a plurality of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007