Appeal No. 97-3064
Application 08/235,332
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review,
we will sustain the rejection of claim 15. We will not,
however, sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Considering first the rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wittel, it is the
examiner’s position that
Wittel meets the structural limitations of the
apparatus as claimed and, thus, would inherently
accommodate such an elongated flexible resilient
strip of nominally curved lateral cross section and
the characteristics of such [i.e., “snap to . . .”
and “snap back . . .”] would be exhibited if such a
strip is placed in the apparatus. Moreover, Wittel
discloses the ability of the apparatus to handle
various types of film . . . . [Answer, pages 6 and
7; emphasis ours.]
The appellant does not contest the examiner’s assertion
can rightly be distinguishable over prior art because of
functional and operational limitations” (page 3, footnote 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007