Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
multiplexing signals as in Oliver. We agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to combine Oliver with
VanZeeland. VanZeeland does not state that other conventional
ways of transmitting multiple camera signals known to those of
ordinary skill in the art, such as the frequency division
multiplexing of Oliver, will not work and, so, does not teach
away. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130,
1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set
out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant."). One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ
the multiplexing system of Oliver with a multiple camera
system of VanZeeland to obtain the advantages of allowing the
output of several cameras to be watched at the same time,
instead of sequentially.
We briefly comment on two other aspects of the Examiner's
rejection. The Examiner applies Cooper against claim 2 and
finds that Cooper teaches combining two sources to provide an
overlay image (Paper No. 5, p. 5). While Cooper discloses
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007