Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 8
Application No. 08/100,019
knowledge of partial exposure and development, no evidence of
other skilled artisans’ published work tending to support this
assertion has been presented. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the specification does not describe the subject matter of
claims 7 and 15 in an enabling manner and their rejection under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is sustained.
Turning to the § 102 rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8, 10
through 14, 16 and 17 over Ames, Appellant relies on the claim
limitation of “[a] sealed package of photographic film” to
distinguish the claimed invention from Ames (brief, page 16).
Appellant further points out that Ames uses a photographic paper
which is different from the claimed photographic film (brief,
page 16 and reply brief, page 3). Additionally, Appellant
argues that Ames does not teach “a sealed package of film” and
merely provides for different boxes that house the unexposed,
partially exposed and fully exposed sensitized paper as the paper
moves from one box to another and passes before the camera lens
(brief, age 16, reply brief, page 3).
The Examiner responds by arguing that the sensitized
photographic paper of Ames functions as instant photographic film
and reads on the claimed subject matter (answer, page 6). The
Examiner further characterizes light-sealed box B and receptacle
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007