Appeal No. 1999-2368 Page 7
Application No. 08/771,018
The rejections utilizing Clark as the primary reference
We will not sustain the following rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103: (1) the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 as being
unpatentable over Clark in view of McClelland; (2) the
rejection of claims 6 to 8 as being unpatentable over Clark in
view of McClelland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Spertus and Cornelius; and (3) the rejection of claim
9 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Colbow.
All of the above-noted rejections utilizing Clark as the
primary reference are based on the examiner's determination
(final rejection, p. 4) that the only difference between Clark
and claim 1 was that Clark "does not teach that the housing
means is attached to an outer surface of a wall member." The
appellants have contested this determination of the examiner.
Specifically, the appellants argue (brief, p. 5) that "the
spring clips 33 of Clark are not the same or equivalent of
Applicant's photographic insert sleeve members."
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants'
position in this matter. In that regard, it is clear to us
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007