Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 11
Application No. 08/100,019
exposed section of the paper is received in receptacle R (page 2,
lines 123-149). Thus, Ames starts with a completely unexposed
frame and successively exposes the frame first with a background
and later with the subject. The result is a complete exposure of
that frame by the time receptacle R receives the paper while the
next completely unexposed frame advances to a position in front
of background camera C’. Accordingly, we find that Ames cannot
anticipate claim 1 since its double exposed paper is not the same
as the claimed film having a plurality of frames with “each
exposable photographic frame comprising a first unexposed portion
and a second exposed portion.” Therefore, the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation. We therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 over Ames.
Turning now to Guez as anticipating claims 1 through 6, 8,
10 through 14, 16 and 17, Appellant argues that the partial
exposure, rewinding and repositioning of the film as disclosed in
Guez is not the same as the claimed “sealed package of film”
(brief, page 17 and reply brief, page 4). In particular,
Appellant points to the failure of Guez to teach or suggest that
the film is packaged and sealed between exposures (brief, page
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007