Appeal No. 96-0552
Application 08/146,525
The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 5 through 7 of
the answer relating to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 relate to positions proper to be advocated within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 and not § 102. Use of the language such as quite obvious,
a suggestion implies, the disclosure in Campbell implicitly
suggests, and a mere design choice are arguments properly raised
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Finally, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, yet
contains a feature of a garment where a video sensor is attached
to the first shoulder of the garment and the audio sensor is
attached to the second shoulder of the garment. Dependent claim
7 and independent claim 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
and specify that the attaching means is a jacket worn by an
operator. Our detailed study of Campbell leads us to conclude
that there is no express teaching or showing in Campbell of a
garment let alone a garment having a video sensor attached to a
first shoulder and an audio sensor attached to a second shoulder
of the same garment in dependent claim 2, as well as no teaching
or suggestion within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to dependent claim 7 and
independent claim 18 of a jacket such that the attaching means
may comprise a jacket worn by an operator. The teachings and
showings in the various figures as well as the teachings and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007