Appeal No. 2001-0252
Application 08/760,652
invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Geluk.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 6 and
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Krajian, we share
appellant’s view that the “faceplate adapted for holding a
film transparency having an area thereon” of claim 4 on appeal
is not readable on the layer (13) in the device of Krajian as
urged by the examiner, since the layer (13) is not capable of
“holding” a film transparency thereon. Moreover, we observe
that the device of Krajian lacks a “means for rotating said
housing [enclosing the light source] so that light is emitted
from the first aperture to scan said transparency” (emphasis
ours) as set forth in appellant’s claim 4. As for the
remaining claims subject to this rejection, we agree with
appellant’s arguments as set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the
brief and on pages 2 through 6 of the reply brief. Thus, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
4, or of claims 5, 6 and 8 which depend therefrom, under 35
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007