Appeal No. 97-0399
Application 07/783,113
conclusion of obviousness:
Given the teachings of the secondary references
[Dalton, Kohno, and Kawazoe], it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
provide the pan head and the two auxiliary legs of a
fixed length pivotally attached to the bracket of
Horn et al to obtain the claimed invention for the
purpose of achieving a versatile camera support.
[answer,
page 5]
OPINION
Having carefully considered the content of the claims on
appeal, the teachings of applied references and the respective
viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner, we shall
not sustain the examiner’s rejection.
At the outset, we observe that each of the independent
claims on appeal calls for a support apparatus comprising a
monopod body extensible in a telescopic fashion for supporting
a camera as a monopod support, and “two auxiliary legs of a
fixed length” pivotally attached to a bracket fixedly secured
to an upper end of the monopod body. Consistent with the
appellants’ specification, we interpret the terminology “two
auxiliary legs of a fixed length” to mean that the auxiliary
legs are non-adjustable with respect to their length.
Horn, the primary reference, relates to a portable boom
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007