Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
1966). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 6,
9 and 10 which are grouped together. We now consider
the rejection with respect to claims 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20
which stand or fall together as a group [brief, page 2].
Independent claim 11 will serve as the representative claim
for this group. With respect to claim 11, the examiner
basically presents the same rationale we noted above with
respect to claim 1. Claim 11 is similar to claim 1 except
that it additionally recites a limitation that the pocket has
a cross member defining at least one window through which
direct exposure of the image on the filmstrip may be provided.
Appellants make the same arguments we considered above with
respect to claim 1. Appellants also argue that neither
Kumanomido, Roberg or Kogane teaches the window of claim 11
[brief, pages 6-7].
For reasons fully discussed above, we do not find
Jones necessary to meet the invention of claim 11. We also
disagree with appellants that the examiner’s secondary
references do not suggest the “at least one cross member
defining at least one window” of claim 11. Each of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007