Appeal No. 97-0399
Application 07/783,113
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Dalton 2,668,682 Feb. 9, 1954
Kawazoe 3,836,986 Sept. 17, 1974
Kohno 4,640,481 Feb. 3, 1987
Horn et al. (Horn) 5,065,249 Nov. 12, 1991
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Horn in view of Dalton,
Kohno, and Kawazoe. The examiner’s findings of fact are as
follows:
Horn et al discloses the invention substantially as
claimed. Specifically, Horn et al discloses a
monopod body extensible in a telescopic fashion, a
bracket (mounting assembly 14) fixedly attached to
an upper end of the monopod body. See column 3,
lines 17-19, “The camera mounting assembly 14 is
rigidly attached to the upper shaft section 10a.”
Horn et al, however, does not disclose a panhead and
“two auxiliary legs” pivotally attached to the
bracket. Dalton clearly teaches that it is known in
the art to pivotally attach a panhead to a bracket
which holds legs that support the bracket. . . .
Kohno, on the other hand, clearly teaches that it is
known in the art to provide two auxiliary legs of a
fixed length in conjunction with another leg to form
a tripod “when the tripod function is desired.”
Kawazoe further teaches that it is well known in the
art to convert a monopod support to a tripod
support. [answer, pages 4-5]
Based on the above, the examiner has made the following
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007