Appeal No. 2001-0052
Application No. 09/229,216
reflector is adhered to said flash tube to “prevent said flash
reflector from being separated from said flash tube to gain
access to said depressed portions at said inner side without
breaking said flash tube,” we find no reason for ignoring the
“printed matter” in this case or for casting the instant
claimed subject matter into the netherworld of non-statutory
subject matter.
Regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
as anticipated by English, we also will not sustain this
rejection. We agree with appellants that the concave groove
members 47 of English do not meet the specific claim language
of depressed portions being “differently shaped than the
others to form a readable message of different spatial forms
that constitute film identifying indicia.” While the grooves
47 of English may, indeed, be of different sizes, they are not
of different “shapes,” as required by instant claim 2.
Moreover, the diffusing region formed by these grooves 47 of
English clearly do not “form a readable message” and certainly
do not identify any particular film, i.e., the grooves do not
constitute “film identifying indicia.”
Since each and every claim limitation is not disclosed by
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007