Appeal No. 1998-2540
Application No. 08/214,707
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). 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 of claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10,
12-14 and 18-20 based on the teachings of Takeuchi and Wash.
With respect to independent claim 18, the examiner finds that
Takeuchi teaches the claimed invention except that Takeuchi
fails to teach that both the image and the photographic
information are produced from a photographed film. The
examiner cites Wash as teaching apparatus which reads
information from a film and supplies this information to a
processing circuit for later use. The examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to
modify the device of Takeuchi with sensing and reading means
as taught by Wash in order to save time and labor in inputting
the photographic information of Takeuchi (answer, page 5).
Appellants argue that the “photographic information” on
the film in Wash has nothing to do with information which is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007