Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
It is hard to understand how the artisan would not have appreciated that some form of
modulation of a carrier would have been necessary for transmitting audio and video
information from the camera 17 in Figure 1.
We turn lastly to the features of dependent claim 36 rejected under the first
combination of the four references relied upon by the examiner in the initial rejection.
We reverse the rejection of this claim because the examiner’s position with respect to
this claim has not been detailed in the final rejection or answer among the collective
teachings of the four references relied upon; the examiner did not address in any
manner the features required of this claim. The nature of the mounting of the video
camera within the first unitary package of claim 2 is detailed here such as to permit "a
camera angle of the first video camera to be altered without having to change a resting
position of said first unitary package." Since a similar feature is recited in independent
claims 5 and 7 on appeal, we also reverse the rejection of them even though the
examiner additionally relies upon Solari as to claim 5 and the combination of Solari and
Coker as to claims 6-8 and 11 in addition to the basic combination of Kozuki, Citizen,
Hurwitz and Nakajima. The common feature of independent claims 5 and 7, found as
well initially in dependent claim 36, has not been argued by the examiner and it is not
apparent to us that it is taught or suggested in any manner among the combination of
references relied upon to reject any of these claims. We, therefore, reverse the
rejection of dependent claim 6 depending from claim 5 and the rejections of all
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007