Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection with respect to claims
1-3, 6, 9 and 10 which stand or fall together as a group
[brief, page 2]. Independent claim 1 will serve as the
representative claim for this group. With respect to claim 1,
the examiner cites Jones as teaching a film holder designed to
adapt to a smaller size film for use in larger scanning
apparatus. The examiner cites Kumanomido, Roberg or Kogane as
teaching a first and second sheet member forming a transparent
pocket therebetween, and a filmstrip which can be slid into or
out of the pocket. The examiner also notes several other
features of these three secondary references [answer, pages 3-
4].
Appellants basically present two arguments in support
of the patentability of independent claim 1. First,
appellants point to several deficiencies in Jones with respect
to the recitations of claim 1. Second, appellants argue that
there is no basis for combining the teachings of Jones with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007