Appeal No. 98-0384
Application No. 08/579,639
Nevertheless, in this instance, in an effort to avoid
piecemeal appellate review (see Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d
1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993) and Ex parte Ionescu,
222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984)) we make the following
interpretations of the terminology appearing in the claims for
the purpose of reaching the rejections based on prior art. In
independent claim 20, lines 15-19, (as it appears in the
appendix to the brief) we interpret "curved overhanging edge
portions . . . curving towards the essentially flat end faces"
to be:
-- overhanging edge portions attached to the outer
axial edge portions, the overhanging edge portions
extending beyond the width of the strip and adapted
to be deflected along a curved path towards the
essentially flat end faces; --.
Turning to the rejections of claims 2, 8, 13, 17, 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, both of these rejections are
bottomed on the examiner's position that:
Syracuse shows a package comprising a roll of
photosensitive material (10), an opaque cover sheet
(14), a core (12), and opaque end cap covers (18 and
20) substantially as claimed except for the exact
width of the cover sheet and the exact end caps.
Takahashi '601 teaches making a cover sheet wider
than the width of the roll of material and to
overlap the cover sheet edges with the edges of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007