Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 10
Application No. 08/100,019
attribute such limited meaning to claim 1 since the claim does
not preclude a partially exposed photographic film sealed in
other enclosures, such as a camera itself.
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). An anticipating
reference must describe the patented subject matter with
sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject
matter existed and that its existence was recognized by persons
of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 1566, 1567, 7
USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We observe that Ames discloses a number of enclosures in
which a roll of sensitized photographic paper is contained and
exposed in different stages (page 1, lines 96-108). Therefore,
the sensitized paper, on which the photograph is taken, is
contained in a (light) sealed enclosure formed of box B, the
section in front of two cameras and receptacle R. Box B supports
the roll of paper while two cameras C and C’ provide the exposure
of the paper to the subject and the background before the fully
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007