Appeal No. 1997-4093
Application No. 08/115,209
through 43) (Brief, pages 16 and 17), Terashita clearly
counsels against clearing memory of such film data because it
can be used again in the future, and time can be saved if the
film data does not have to be generated a second time.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2
is sustained. The obviousness rejection of claim 3 is
sustained because appellants have chosen to let this claim
fall with claim 2 (Brief, page 6). The obviousness rejection
of claim 10 is sustained because a mere statement by
appellants (Brief, page 18) describing what is set forth in
the claim is not an argument for patentability of the claim.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 6 is reversed,
however, because we agree with the appellants (Brief, page 18)
that the examiner has not demonstrated the obviousness of
these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6
and 10 under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §
112 is reversed. The decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1 through 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007