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