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 § 1.131Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007