Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
Appellants also argue that Reyniers is not directed to a film
holder designed in the manner recited in claim 22 [brief,
pages 7-8].
As we discussed above with respect to claim 1, the
“designed” limitation of claim 22 does not add a structural
limitation to the film holder of claim 22. Since we agree
with the examiner that Reyniers does teach a film holder
comprised of three sheet members, we sustain the rejection of
claims 22-24, 27 and 31 based on either of Kumanomido, Roberg
or Kogane in view of Reyniers.
We now consider dependent claims 7 and 8, which stand
or fall together [brief, page 2], dependent claims 12, 18 and
21, which stand or fall together [id.], and dependent claims
28-30, which stand or fall together [id.]. Each of these
claims is argued to contain a limitation that the window has a
leading edge which has a configuration designed to minimize
catching of the leading edge of the filmstrip. We note that
claim 30 depends from claim 27 which depends from independent
claim 22. None of these claims recites the configuration of
the window to minimize catching of the leading edge of the
filmstrip. Therefore, claim 30 will stand or fall with claim
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007