Appeal No. 97-0399 Application 07/783,113 support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are: Dalton 2,668,682 Feb. 9, 1954 Kawazoe 3,836,986 Sept. 17, 1974 Kohno 4,640,481 Feb. 3, 1987 Horn et al. (Horn) 5,065,249 Nov. 12, 1991 Claims 1, 8, 9, 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Horn in view of Dalton, Kohno, and Kawazoe. The examiner’s findings of fact are as follows: Horn et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Specifically, Horn et al discloses a monopod body extensible in a telescopic fashion, a bracket (mounting assembly 14) fixedly attached to an upper end of the monopod body. See column 3, lines 17-19, “The camera mounting assembly 14 is rigidly attached to the upper shaft section 10a.” Horn et al, however, does not disclose a panhead and “two auxiliary legs” pivotally attached to the bracket. Dalton clearly teaches that it is known in the art to pivotally attach a panhead to a bracket which holds legs that support the bracket. . . . Kohno, on the other hand, clearly teaches that it is known in the art to provide two auxiliary legs of a fixed length in conjunction with another leg to form a tripod “when the tripod function is desired.” Kawazoe further teaches that it is well known in the art to convert a monopod support to a tripod support. [answer, pages 4-5] Based on the above, the examiner has made the following -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007