Appeal No. 97-2287
Application No. 08/299,128
Bloemendaal et al. (Bloemendaal) 5,400,200 Mar. 21,
1995
(filed Sept. 14, 1992)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bloemendaal or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Bloemendaal.
Reference is made to the brief, the amended reply brief
(paper number 16) and the answer for the respective positions
of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the rejections of claim 1.
In the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), the examiner explains (Answer, page 4) that:
While Bloemendaal does not explicitly disclose
"concave portions" formed along a film edge (10),
said portions are deemed inherent since photographic
films typically have such concave portions. And
assuming that these portions are inherent, the size
of said portions, i.e., the "dimension of the width
of openings of concave portions," is inherently
deemed smaller than the width of said edge following
surface . . . .
In the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner explains (Answer, page 5) that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007