Appeal No. 1997-2704
Application 08/363,607
form.” On the contrary, it would appear that the video cameras employed in these references collect
image data in an analog manner. Thus, neither Camras nor Roth provides for the collection of data “in
digital form” or for a “carried digital data input device,” as required by claim 16.
We will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16, or of its dependent claims 22, 24, 28
and 33, under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Camras and Roth.
We now turn to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on
Camras, Roth and Gerber.
We also will not sustain the rejection of these independent claims since, although not requiring
retransmission to a remote police station and receiving response data from such station, these claims do
require, as in claim 16, a “digital data input device.” Claims 1 and 35 further make it clear that the
portable video camera and the digital data input device are separate entities. Accordingly, even if we
were to determine that, somehow, the video cameras of Camras and/or Roth were “digital data input”
devices, there would still be a claimed element missing from the combination of the references. Gerber
is also directed to a video camera input device. The camera therein provides an image of a license
plate to a computer which then processes that data to determine the owner of the vehicle and then
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007