Ex parte OMIYA - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1998-2965                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/589,156                                                                                  



                     1.  A photographic camera comprising a taking lens system supported in a                             
                     camera body by a lens barrel, film chambers, and a battery chamber which                             
                     accommodates a battery and is formed adjacent to the lens barrel, the                                
                     battery chamber being located outside of the film chambers, the camera                               
                     characterized in that                                                                                
                            at least part of the wall defining the battery chamber is formed                              
                     integrally with the lens barrel so that said part of the wall also comprises a                       
                     portion of the lens barrel.                                                                          
                     The examiner relies on the following references:                                                     
              Takagai                                    5,381,200            Jan.  10, 1995                              
                                                                       (filed May 17, 1993)                               
              Katayama et al.   (Katayama)               5,515,135            May  07, 1996                               
                                           (effective filing date of at least Jun. 18, 1991)                              
                     Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Takagai.                    
              Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takagai in                         
              view of Katayama.                                                                                           
                     Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of                           
              appellant and the examiner.                                                                                 
                                                       OPINION                                                            
                     At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims at                
              page 4 of the principal brief, all claims will stand or fall together.  Accordingly, we                     
              concentrate on the subject matter of claim 1.                                                               
                     It is the examiner’s position that Takagai anticipates the subject matter of instant                 
              claim 1.  More particularly, the examiner contends that the claim  limitation “at least part of             


                                                            2                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007