Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 24
Application No. 08/100,019
Similar to the discussion of Wheeler, we also advise that the
Examiner consider whether Olson’s claim 1 is obvious over
Appellant’s claim 1 based on the reason that it would have been
conventional and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
block the pre-exposed portion during the exposure of the second
unexposed portion to prevent double exposure of the pre-exposed
portion as is well-known in photography art. Similarly, analysis
should be made with respect to claims 18 and 19 of Olson, which
recite a first pre-exposed section and a second non-exposed
section in which only the second section will be exposed to light
during photography in a camera.
Lastly, with respect to Kirkendall, the Examiner is
recommended to determine whether “same invention” is claimed,
i.e., whether the subject matter of Appellant’s claim 1 is
anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or rendered obvious (35 U.S.C.
§ 103) by the subject matter of Kirkendall’s claims 12 and vice
versa. We suggest that the Examiner review the “SUMMARY OF THE
INVENTION” section in Kirkendall and specifically consider the
way the reference preexposes portions of each photographic frame.
Kirkendall in col. 2, lines 48-55 recites:
Each frame of the [film] strip is subsequently masked and
exposed to light which passes through nonopaque areas of the
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007