Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
camcorders may be utilized to perform photographic functions but generally require an
operator. Appellants generally recognize that camcorders may be utilized operating
alone or on tripods by the comment made in the sentence bridging pages 1 and 2
indicating that events such as conferences, weddings and interviews may be recorded
using such a camcorder and tripod "so that a camcorder operator need not attend the
camcorder during photorecording." Appellants then indicate at the top of page 2 of the
specification as filed that it was known to use video recording devices for surveillance
operations in various establishments, where such surveillance recorders were fixed and
used without operators, but generally required cable links to interconnect the camera to
the recording devices.
We turn first to the rejection using the basic combination of references of Kozuki,
Citizen, Hurwitz and Nakajima to reject claims 1, 2, 25, 30, 31 and 36. We sustain the
rejection as to all these claims except claim 36 as initially set forth by the examiner in
the answer in the statement of the rejection, which is restated at pages 17 and 18 of the
answer. The examiner’s cumbersome approach set forth at pages 4-10 of the answer
is somewhat simplified at pages 17 and 18 of the answer. This later portion of the
answer is in agreement with our own thinking as to the basis of combineability of the
four references relied upon in the initial rejection.
Unlike independent claim 1, independent claim 2 does not require a video signal
to be broadcast from a video camera by electromagnetic energy radiations. Kozuki
teaches the unitary combination that results from the attachment of video camera 100
to the VTR 500 shown at least in Figure 1 of this reference. On the other hand, Citizen
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007