Appeal No. 1998-2903
Application No. 08/607,305
structure and operation of a lens-fitted photographic film unit where the film is wound into
the patrone frame by frame as pictures are taken by a user. (See answer at pages 4-6
and Mochida generally.) Mochida also teaches that it is desirable to test the shutter and
film advancing mechanism prior to shipment. (See reply brief at pages 3-4 and Mochida at
page 11.) The examiner maintains that the cited text concerning the testing is motivation
to skilled artisans to at least partially cock the shutter prior to loading the film. (See answer
at pages 8-13.) We disagree with the examiner and find that his rationale is based upon
speculation and conjecture which is not supported by Mochida or the record before us.
The examiner postulates time savings and efficiencies in the answer at pages 8 and 9, but
appellants have rebutted the examiner’s conclusions in the reply brief at pages 1-3. We
agree with appellants that there may be other efficiencies and alternatives which the
examiner does not evaluate on the record. We find that the examiner’s assertions are not
clearly supported by the
record before us and are based upon hindsight gleaned from appellants' specification.
The examiner further requires a statement of the problem in the specification and
evidence of the problem, and the examiner maintains that the claimed invention is merely a
change in the order of the steps. In response, appellants cite the relevant portion of the
specification supporting the problem solved. (See reply brief at page 3.) Furthermore, we
find it puzzling that the examiner is requiring evidence when the examiner’s rejection
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007