Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 15
Application No. 08/100,019
1629, (Fed. Cir. 1996), In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217
USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Our review of Jones reveals that the reference teaches
producing photographs with borders or writings by using one or
more masks that are superimposed on the film for use in a regular
or instant camera (col. 2, lines 32-62). Thus, the desired
configuration can be produced in the print at the time of making
the exposure for the instant developing films. Jones further
teaches that the mask member may remain in the camera during
several succession exposures since it does not interfere with the
forward feeding of the film (col. 2, lines 12-16). However, we
find no teachings or suggestions in Jones relating to the
limitation of exposed and unexposed portions on each frame of a
sealed photographic film, that would overcome the deficiencies
noted above in Ames. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ames in view
of Jones.
With respect to the combination of Jones with Guez, it is
our view that the Examiner has established a reasonable prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 4 and 5. Based
on our review of Jones, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to substitute an instant developing film for
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007