Appeal No. 1998-0866
Application No. 08/698,707
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appellants'
claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we particularly note that independent
claim 1 is drawn to a camera and a recording device.
Claim 1 recites,
1. A camera comprising an information-bearing medium movable
to record non-varying information on a filmstrip, is
characterized in that: said information-bearing medium is a
magnetic roller recorder having a roller periphery on which is
magnetically stored the non-varying information; and means
rotationally supports said roller recorder in place for
stationary rolling contact of said roller periphery with a
magnetic track on a filmstrip as the filmstrip is advanced,
whereby the non-varying information can be repetitively
recorded along the magnetic track on the filmstrip.
The examiner's rejection of claim 1 points out that
"[t]he difference between Swanson et al. and the claimed
invention is the magnetic roller recorder is rotatably mounted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007