Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
hearing, we asked why this APA was not "mixing" as recited in
the claims, but did not get a clear explanation; thus, this
new ground of rejection is required to obtain a written
answer.
It seems logical that the other limitations of claims 4,
5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 would have been incorporated in the APA
devices. That is, video-assisted remote control of vehicles
necessarily implies a transmitter for remote control data and
a remote control receiver on the machine or there would be no
remote control. Nevertheless, we apply VanZeeland to show a2
remote controlled vehicle and a remote control center having a
display. The vehicle can have multiple cameras (col. 7,
lines 50-55) and a camera can have a zoom lens 52 (i.e.,
adjustable focal distance, specification, p. 5, lines 3-4) and
an elevation adjusting motor 50, as recited in claims 4, 5,
and 8. It would have been obvious to implement the remote
controlled vehicle in the APA with the remote control
Appellant is in the best position to know what else2
was contained in the prior art described in the APA. Since
Appellant has a duty to disclose information material to
patentability, we will interpret arguments of counsel that
limitations are not described in the APA as a representation
by Appellant that such limitations were not known to be prior
art as to him.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007