Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
structural combination and not the combination of the teachings of the references relied
upon by the examiner, which is the determining factor within a proper analysis of the
applied prior art within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not the approach taken by appellants. Our
reasoning has embellished upon the examiner’s reasoning for combineability of the four
references relied upon. There are no clear teachings away, contrary to appellants’
arguments in the brief, as to the combination of the actual teachings of the references
themselves. In fact, the opposite is true when the teachings are considered fairly
among the four references and properly weighed.
Appellants have not argued the particulars of dependent claim 25. The audio
recording feature of claim 25 is clearly taught by Kozuki, Nakajima and Hurwitz anyway.
Similarly, dependent claim 30 is not argued by appellants. In any event, such
requirements of this claim are taught by Hurwitz and Nakajima anyway. The feature of
the dependent claim 31 argued by appellants is the feature of this claim that the
transmitter is of the type for transmitting modulated electromagnetic energy. Although
Nakajima does not detail this, it is clear at least from the Figure 7 embodiment that
there are various detection methodologies shown in the figure which indicate that there
are carrier detection circuits within the device in this figure. Such would clearly indicate
that a modulation of electromagnetic energy would have occurred. The discussion in
the initial lines of column 6 of Hurwitz indicates that there is a modulator employed to
broadcast video images from the camera according to the teachings of this reference.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007