Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 16
Application No. 08/100,019
the continuous film of Guez to produce a partially pre-exposed
frame of instant developing kind that is later exposed in order
to complete the picture. However, we find nothing in Jones that
relates to the process steps of claim 17 related to opening and
removing a sealed package of film to be placed into a camera,
which are also present in claims 12 and 13. Therefore, the
subject matter of claims 12 and 13 would not have been obvious
over the combination of Guez and Jones since Jones does not cure
the above-noted deficiency of Guez with respect to the recited
features of base claim 17 from which claims 12 and 13 depend.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guez in view of Jones, but reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 12 and 13.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Our further consideration of the record in this application
leads us to conclude that the rejection of appealed claims 1
through 8 and 10 through 17 based on the prior art listed below,
that was overcome by establishing prior date of the invention,
should be revisited by the Examiner. Our conclusion is based on
an analysis of the propriety of the declarations under 37 CFR
§ 1.131 (filed May 8, 1995 and October 23, 1995) to overcome the
art rejection based on these references. Accordingly, we remand
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007