Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
Citizen. Appellants’ arguments as to the rejection of this claim at pages 32-34 of the
brief do not persuade us of any error in the examiner’s rejection.
Turning to independent claim 1 on appeal, in contrast to claim 2, this claim adds
the feature of a video camera being selectably attachable in its own second unitary
package to a primary or first unitary package, where the video camera may be able to
broadcast its images by electromagnetic radiation. In the context of the combination of
Kozuki and Citizen, both Hurwitz and Nakajima teach that this broadcast feature was
known in the art. Even as to the reliance upon Bellman and the rejection of claim 13
just discussed, Bellman confirms what is already taught by Hurwitz and Nakajima
anyway in the basic combination of the four references utilized to reject claims 2 and 13
on appeal. The Hurwitz device in its various figures indicate that it was known in the art
to utilize a single housing for wireless communication of video camera images which
are also recorded not only in the camera itself, but also in plural remote receiver units
able to receive the broadcast video images, such as are indicated as the remote
recordable external video tape recorder 60 associated with the receiving antenna 42 in
the receiving unit 40 in Figure 1. A similar showing there is of a fixed site 75 which has
its own monitor and videotape recorder element 70. Each of these devices are more
particularly shown in other figures of this reference. Like Bellman, it appears that
microwave frequencies are utilized for these relatively short distance broadcasts for
audio and video information from a common video camera source. Like Citizen, the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007