Appeal No. 1996-3578 Page 6
Application No. 08/125,756
manner since “it is very difficult to control the film image if the magnification speed and
scanning speed are increasing at the same time.” (See answer at page 6.) The Examiner
then concludes that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to decrease the speed
of the scan with increasing magnification. Id. The Examiner then concludes that the
operator control through the control ball 58 would be replaced by an automatic control.
(See answer at pages 6-7.) Clearly, the Examiner is reconstructing appellants’ invention
from appellants’ own disclosure rather than from a line of reasoning separate from
appellants’ disclosure. We will not sustain the rejection of claim 17 based upon the
evidence set forth by the Examiner.
With respect to claim 18, the Examiner sets forth that the automatic control of scan
scope is “inherently included in the process of moving the film image by the scan ball.”
(See answer at page 7.) We do not agree with the Examiner. The Examiner argues that
DiPietro teaches that “a speed of a film . . . can be kept constant by
controlling scanning [ball] 58 and zoom button 54" and that a “negative linear relation . . .
can be kept in a [sic] inversely proportional manner by controlling the scanning ball 58 and
zoom button 54” (See answer at page 8.) (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007