Appeal No. 1998-2540
Application No. 08/214,707
film, but would also require that a specific type of reading
means be added to Takeuchi for reading and storing the coded
photographic information. The Wash film is simply unrelated
to the type of film necessary to form the system set forth in
the claimed invention. Although the invention of claim 18
appears relatively broad and simple, we merely determine that
the prior art applied by the examiner fails to support the
modification proposed by the examiner to indicate obviousness.
Although independent claims 19 and 20 are of slightly
different scope from claim 18, the examiner essentially relies
on the same rationale for combining the teachings of Takeuchi
and Wash (answer, pages 6-7). We again determine that the
combination of references proposed by the examiner is not
supported by the prior art. The rejection appears contrived
for no other reason than to meet the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 18-20 or of dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-14
based on the collective teachings of Takeuchi and Wash.
Although dependent claim 2 is rejected using the
additional teachings of Ueno, Ueno does not overcome the
deficiencies in the basic combination of Takeuchi and Wash
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007