Appeal No. 1997-2704
Application 08/363,607
displays, on a sign, the owner’s name and lets the driver know that the vehicle is exceeding the speed
limit. Thus, we find nothing in Gerber which provides for the deficiencies, i.e., a “digital data input
device,” of Camras and Roth.
Claim 35 makes it clear that the portable apparatus carried by the police officer comprises a
video camera and a digital data input device within the housing of the portable device and that
transmitters transmit both a video signal and digital data. We find nothing in the applied references
suggesting these claim limitations.
References to Michetti (applied for the teaching of a split screen) and Riley (applied for the
teaching of a dead man switch) applied for different limitations of dependent claims also do not provide
for the deficiencies noted supra with regard to the principal references.
Accordingly, since we find that the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
were improper, so, too, are the rejections of the dependent claims.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007