Appeal No. 1997-2704
Application 08/363,607
Michetti 4,843,463 Jun. 27, 1989
Gerber 5,381,155 Jan. 10, 1995
(filed Jun. 9, 1994)
Roth 5,406,324 Apr. 11, 1995
(filed Oct. 30, 1992)
Claims 1 through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Camras and Roth with regard to claims 16, 22, 24, 28 and 33, adding Gerber to this
combination with regard to claims 1 through 4, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 17 through 21, 23, 25 through 27,
30 through 32 and 35 through 45, and further adding Michetti with regard to claims 5 through 7 and 34.
With regard to claims 13 and 29, the examiner cites Camras, Roth, Gerber and Riley.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective details of the positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn, first, to the rejection of independent claim 16. While not directed to police
investigations, per se, Camras does disclose a portable video recording system wherein a person
carries a portable video camera which can communicate, in a wireless manner, with a portable video
recorder in a car. Data can then be collected in digital form by the portable video camera and
transmitted to the video recorder in the car.
As recognized by the examiner, Camras does not disclose the further transmitting of that data to
a remote station, i.e., the claim language, “...retransmitting to a police station the received digital data to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007