Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
In regard to claim 7, the examiner finds that "Hanson
teaches a camera attached to the helmet under the brim which
is pivotal in the horizontal and vertical directions for
inherent directional adjustment purposes" (Paper No. 8,
page 3; EA4). Appellants argue that the examiner erred.
Appellants argue that figures 10 and 11 show cantilever
mounting and "[c]antilever mounting obviously is mounting for
pivoting in the vertical direction and not the horizontal as
stated by the Examiner" (Br22). We agree with appellants that
Hanson does not mount the camera for rotation in the
horizontal direction. The examiner responds to appellants'
argument by stating that "the basis of the rejection is that
it would have been obvious to pivotally attach the camera to
the helmet for the purpose of aligning the sight of the camera
to a desired line of sight" (EA13). This reasoning changes
the basis of the rejection for the horizontal rotation from it
being taught in Hanson to it being obvious over Hanson. Since
the cameras in Hanson are either mounted on the centerline of
the helmet (figure 12) or mounted in front of the user's eye
(figure 9), there is no need for horizontal rotation because
the cameras look straight ahead. Appellants' camera is
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007