Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 5
Application No. 08/100,019
reconsideration of the declarations under 37 CFR § 1.131 (papers
No. 8, filed May 8, and No. 10, 1995 and October 23, 1995).
At the outset, we note that Appellant considers claims 7 and
15, rejected under § 112, separately and indicates that they do
stand or fall with the remaining claims (brief, page 14).
Appellant further provides arguments for claims 1 through 3, 6,
8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17, corresponding to the rejection under
§ 102, that are separate from those provided for the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 under § 103 (brief, pages 14 & 21).
Therefore, we will consider the claims as the above-mentioned
three groups.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 15 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Appellant argues that at
least three methods by which a partially developed and sealed
film could be made were known at the time of the filing of the
application (brief, page 11). Appellant provides a description
of three such methods (brief, pages 11-13) as well as a depiction
of the related process steps (attachment to the brief, Figures 1-
14) and concludes that the known methods are simple enough that
would have been known to any person skilled in the art.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by stating
that such methods of partially developing pre-exposed portions
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007