Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
any of the applied secondary references [brief, pages 3-7].
Although we agree with many of appellants’ arguments on the
deficiencies of Jones and the lack of combinability of the
applied references, we find that the examiner and appellants
have failed to properly consider the scope of representative
claim 1 and the teachings necessary to suggest the invention
of claim 1.
In our view, the preamble of claim 1 in which it is
noted what the flexible film holder is designed to do does not
place any structural limitation on the film holder. The
preamble simply represents a future, possible intended use for
the film holder. Instead, claim 1 simply recites that the
film holder is comprised of two sheets secured to each other
to form a pocket therebetween and having an opening through
which said filmstrip can be slid into and out of said pocket.
In our view, each of the secondary references, by itself,
fully meets the film holder as broadly recited in claim 1. As
noted above, whether the film holder is designed to allow use
of a filmstrip of a first size in printing or scanning
apparatus designed to receive filmstrips of a second size is
not a structurally distinguishing limitation of the invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007