Appeal No. 1997-2314
Application No. 08/349,728
Appellant argues (Brief, page 6) that:
It is agreed that Einbinder teaches the concept of
recording at different speeds, but where within
Einbinder is there a teaching of when a passenger
door is moved to an open position that the video
recorder records the output signal of only the door
camera at a faster rate of speed? It is Appellant’s
contention that the only way that this is obvious is
by recourse through Appellant’s own disclosure.
Appellant then concludes (Brief, page 7) that “[n]one of the
references of record specifically teach [sic] opening a door
which would then cause only the video of the door to be
displayed and at the same time the speed of the recording
increased to a much faster rate.”
As indicated supra, neither Feher, Gormley nor Cotton
teaches a change in recording speed after one of the plurality
of camera outputs is selected for closer examination. In
fact, Feher never favors one camera output over the other
camera outputs. Einbinder uses two different recording
speeds, but he only has a single surveillance camera. Thus,
in the absence of appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention,
there is no other teaching of record that selects a second
video recording speed based upon the selection of only one of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007