Appeal No. 1997-2704
Application 08/363,607
provide such a well known and recognized feature of communications” and that the communication
between Camras’ portable camera 260 and recording station 270 “may certainly enable one skilled in
the art to provide such similar two-way communications capabilities between the vehicle and base
station of Roth” sounds, to us, to be a rationale based on hindsight rather than on any particular
teachings or suggestions of the applied references. While the examiner
argues that “...Roth may certainly provide and transmit any pertinent data that is significant to a police
investigation which obviously may include information such as criminal record and/or a digitized file
photograph of an individual...” [principal answer-page 16], we still find no persuasive rationale by the
examiner for providing for the claimed “receiving the response data which is converted into a suitable
image by an output device carried by the police officer.” Thus, as claimed, there must be some
communication from the remote base station to a portable device carried by the police officer and that
communication must involve response data from the remote base station which is converted into an
image by the device carried by the police officer.
Further, claim 16 requires collecting data “in digital form” and inputting data to a “carried digital
data input device.” That “digital data” then prompts a response from a police station. There is nothing
in Camras or Roth to suggest that either of the cameras employed therein are collecting data “in digital
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007