Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
Examiner's admission that the '563 patent does not20
specifically disclose that all elements are built on a
portable video unit.
Appellant then argues that contrary to the Examiner's
finding that one "skilled in the art would have no difficulty21
to build the camera . . . and printer of Lemelson in the
portable housing in a manner as taught in Camras . . . ",
Camras teaches just the opposite. Specifically, Appellant
points to Camras' hand-held recording unit which is in 22
communication via a transmitter (250) to a separately housed
video monitor (252) and tape recording unit (270). Appellant
points out that Camras has no printer, and expressly excludes 23
the video recorder from being in the housing holding the
camera, so that the camera may be readily carried without
difficulty and that the camera station can be small, extremely
light weight, and with a structure no larger than comparable
20 Final rejection, page 11, lines 7-8.
21Final rejection, page 14, lines 9-10.
22Figure 1, item 260.
23 Column 1, lines 19-48.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007