Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 14-17 in light of the collective teachings
and showings of Kozuki, Citizen and Bellman. We sustain this rejection as to claims
14, 16 and 17 for the reasons essentially set forth by the examiner. Our earlier analysis
with respect to Kozuki and Citizen as well as with respect to Bellman are clearly
applicable here. Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 14 at pages 34-36 of the
principal brief on appeal have not been found to be persuasive for the reasons
established earlier in our opinion.
We reverse the rejection as to dependent claim 15. The claimed second unitary
package of claim 14 is said in claim 15 to be "attached to said first unitary package."
Although this feature is taught by Kozuki, no combination of features of Kozuki, Citizen,
and Bellman teaches the additional requirements of claim 15 that the attachment be "so
as to allow the second unitary package to be moved respective to the first unitary
package, in order to change a camera angle of said first video camera" (emphasis
added). The combination of the three references relied upon would not provide for the
capability of the attached second unitary package containing a video camera to be
moved with respect to or "respective to" the first unitary package. Once the camera
100, for example, of Kozuki is attached to its videotape recorder unit 500, the second
unitary package 100 containing the video camera would not be movable with respect to
the first unitary package, the VTR 500, for any purpose let alone to change the camera
angle of the first video camera. Even though the video camera of Citizen is contained
within the housing 1 of the portable camera device in this reference, the noted feature
recited in claim 15 can not be met. Likewise, Bellman’s cameras with their respective
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007