Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 12
Application No. 09/241,700
mounted to the user’s garment is not suggested by the combined
teachings of the references. However, as pointed out above and
by the examiner (answer, page 8), Winningstad teaches that user
mounted camera systems are useful for police officers who
normally wear a bullet proof vest. Consequently, for reasons
expressed above and in the answer, we agree with the examiner
that the claim 12 requirement for a rigid frame for mounting the
cameras onto a garment does not patentably distinguish over the
combined teachings of the applied references. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(The claimed
invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references, rather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.).
It follows that we will affirm the examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 9-12 and 14 over Henley in view of
Winningstad.
As for the examiner’s separate rejection of claims 11 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henley in
view of Winningstad and Shiomi, we note that appellant does not
furnish any additional arguments thereagainst. Consequently, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007