Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 12
Application No. 08/100,019
18). Appellant further argues that the partially exposed film of
Guez that is rewound back into the canister, must be partially
hanging out of the canister for further use and therefore, is not
a sealed package (reply brief, page 6).
In response, the Examiner argues that the rewound film must
be an inherently (light) sealed package in order to properly
function as a photographic film (answer, page 6). The Examiner
further argues that the claim does not require that the film be
packaged and sealed between exposures (answer, pages 6 & 7).
After our review of Guez, consideration of the arguments of
record and our determination of the scope of claim 1, we agree
with the Examiner that Guez sufficiently describes a sealed
package of photographic film comprising partially exposed frames.
The reference teaches a method of making superimposed pictures on
a roll of film by first shooting all the backgrounds (or
foregrounds) and rewinding the film in the sealed film
compartment of a camera. Next, the foregrounds (or backgrounds)
corresponding to each pre-exposed frame are shot on the same film
(col. 10, lines 36-46). A mask combination, as depicted in
Figure 8, masks the foreground when the background is being shot
and, similarly, masks the background during the exposure to the
foreground subject. We note that the roll of film remains in the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007