Appeal No. 96-3211
Application 07/928,717
6. Folsom does not teach away from the combination because
it is Suzuki's purpose (intrusion detection) that would motivate
the artisan to combine the references, not Folsom's (transaction
monitoring) purpose. The problem of wasting video during non-
alarm periods is the same in both situations, however, and
provides the motivation to modify an intrusion detection system
with an intermittent/continuous recording mode switch.
7. Independent claim 7 contains additional limitations.
Moreover, Applicant specifically argues the differences between
his disclosed circuit and structures in the references.
(Paper 33 at 14.) The examiner relies on the general skill in
the art (Paper 34 at 15), but fails to explain precisely what
would have led the artisan to Applicant's circuits or their
equivalents. Thus, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
provide a basis for rejecting claim 7.
8. We reverse the rejection of claim 8 pro forma because
claim 8 depends from claim 7.
9. Regarding claim 10, Applicant points out the difference
signal limitation and the two recording modes without any
argument as to why these limitations are not met. (Paper 333
3 In his reply brief, Applicant argues that claim 10
recites specific circuitry like claim 7. (Paper 37 at 11.) This
argument finds no support in the language of claim 10. Moreover,
unlike the other claims on appeal, claim 10 does not use
means/step-plus-function language, so it is not presumed to
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007