Ex Parte TRICK - Page 25



          Appeal No. 2001-1306                                      Page 25           
          Application No. 08/100,019                                                  

               mask in order to expose the underlying film to an image                
               contained on said nonopaque areas of the mask.                         
          Claim 12 of Kirkendall includes similar features in col. 12,                
          lines 7-10 by reciting:                                                     
               a strip of negative film having opposite ends, ..., said               
                    strip of negative film comprising a plurality of frames           
                    each of which includes a portion, which has previously            
                    been exposed during its manufacture so as to provide a            
                    first latent image therein, and an unexposed portion;             
          and in col. 12, lines 22-29 by reciting:                                    
               means for configuring said exposure frame opening so as to             
                    prevent the further exposure of said exposed                      
                    portion of each of said film frames while                         
                    simultaneously allowing the exposure of said                      
                    unexposed portion of said film frame to image                     
                    bearing light rays passing through said                           
                    exposure frame opening during its exposure                        
                    within a camera so as to provide a second                         
                    latent image within said film frame.                              
          Similar to the discussions of Wheeler and Olson, we also advise             
          that the Examiner consider whether Kirkendall’s claim 12 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 as is routinely practiced in                
          photography art.                                                            
               We emphasize that we have not made any determination with              
          respect to the propriety of the declarations under 37 CFR § 1.131           






Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007