Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
not detail any further the operability or useability of antenna 61 to broadcast any video
signals. Therefore, we are in agreement with appellants’ view at the bottom of page 36
of the principal brief on appeal that Blazek does not provide any suggestion of a low
power television transmitter for video signals to the combination of Kozuki and Citizen
which together fail to teach this feature as well. As such, the rejection of independent
claim 14 must be reversed as well as its respective dependent claims 15-21.
We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 22 essentially for two
reasons. The combination of Kozuki with Citizen and Blazek fails to provide the
structural limitations of the preamble of this claim, which include the same feature
recited in dependent claim 36, independent claim 5 and independent claim 7 as noted
earlier in this opinion. This includes the feature of a recording/reproducing apparatus
including a unitary package with a video camera having a drive mechanism for
changing the camera angle of the video camera. There is no provision for doing this
according to the combination of Kozuki, Citizen, and Blazek. We also reverse the
rejection because the various steps of the body of the method claim 22 itself also can
not be met by the teachings and suggestions of this combination of references. Again,
the additionally provided reasons for rejecting claim 5 on appeal as stated earlier
regarding the features of supplying a position code corresponding to a desired camera
angle utilizing a memory to store it and a microcomputer to operate it have not been
argued and are clearly not shown or taught in the combination of Kozuki, Citizen, and
Blazek.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007