Appeal No. 1997-2704
Application 08/363,607
from a video camera and a base station “for the same well known communications purposes as
claimed” [principal answer-page 8].
Even assuming, arguendo, that all the examiner says is correct, it does not appear to us that the
examiner has addressed all of the limitations of claim 16. The claim requires, in addition to the
communication between the police car and the officer and between the police car and the base station,
a communication between the base station and the police officer. We find nothing in the proposed
combination of references which would suggest the retransmitting of the claimed received digital data to
personnel at a remote base station in order to prompt a response from the base station for the police
officer nor do we find anything taught in the combination of these references which would suggest the
claimed “receiving the response data which is converted into a suitable image by an output device
carried by the police officer.” Camras does not disclose or suggest a remote base station, separate
from the vehicle. Only Roth suggests a remote base station and the remote base station in Roth
receives a signal and stores images. The remote base station in Roth does not
transmit response data which is received by a police officer, or any other individual.
The examiner’s further explanation [principal answer-page 16] that “...Roth may certainly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007