Appeal No. 1997-2314
Application No. 08/349,728
permanent record . . . of the pictures being monitored . . .
without having to record each source individually.” Appellant
has, however, presented a challenge (Brief, page 5) to the
examiner’s conclusion (paper number 2, pages 4 and 5) that
based upon the teachings of Feher, Gormley and Cotton “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
record the output signal from only the door camera when the
passenger door is open because it is important to view
passengers as they enter the passenger compartment . . . and
because a full screen view would provide the best chance of
identifying potential troublemakers.” Appellant has likewise
challenged the examiner’s conclusion (paper number 2, page 5)
that based upon the teachings of all of the applied references
“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to record the multiplexed output signals of all cameras at
a slow speed when the passenger door is closed and to record
only the door camera signal at a faster speed when the
passenger door is open.” The examiner indicates (paper number
2, page 5) that “[d]oing so would save recording space . . .
by real-time recording only the important passenger loading
event.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007