Appeal No. 97-0903
Application No. 08/266,865
The cited prior art does not teach or suggest, nor is it
apparent to us, why the artisan would have found it obvious to
place machine-readable panoramic code information in the
visible area of the developed film frame. Appellants are able
to permit this because the subsequent printing operation will
remove the machine-readable code from the visible part of the
print. Absent appellants’ disclosure of the subsequent
printing operation, there would be no motivation to expose the
panoramic code data onto a visible portion of the exposed film
frame.
Although the examiner argues that the printing aspects
of appellants’ system form no part of the claimed invention,
the examiner has not addressed why the artisan would have been
motivated to expose panoramic print information as a visible
image on the frame of film. This operation must occur at the
camera and is clearly recited in claim 1.
The examiner’s approach is basically to dismiss the
claimed invention as being obvious without providing a factual
record which supports this position. The examiner cites case
law for the proposition that he does not have to find every
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007