Appeal No. 97-0744 Page 7
Application No. 08/270,851
member in order to provide camera mounting means as
taught by Tani.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 10-11) that the examiner
has not established prima facie obviousness of the claimed
subject matter since the examiner has not provided any
explanation (i.e., motivation) as to why an artisan would have
mounted Tani's shaft member to Guddee's second side member.
We agree. Tani discloses a pedestal 4 mounted to a planar
display table (i.e., base) 3a. A camera supporting mechanism
5 is mounted to Tani's pedestal 4. Tani teaches that the
camera supporting mechanism 5 includes a tubular body 7, a
movable arm 8 and a camera holder 9. It is our opinion that
the combined teaching of Guddee and Tani would have at best
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made the mounting of Tani's pedestal and camera
supporting mechanism to Guddee's base, not Guddee's second
side member as set forth by the examiner. Thus, it appears to
us that the examiner has resorted to speculation and/or
improper hindsight reconstruction to reject the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007