Appeal No. 1999-0419
Application 08/383,483
housings 200 in Figure 1 are not necessarily taught to be attachable to any device such
as to permit the camera housings 200 to be moved with respect to any first unitary
package attached thereto.
We do sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17. The discussion with respect to
the reversal of dependent claim 15 makes clear that the teaching value of the
combination of the three references meeting claim 16 is found in Kozuki. We do,
however, find it also would have been obvious to the artisan that the camera units 200
in Figure 1 of Bellman would have been designed to be attached to and removable from
the airplane in which they are located. There are no arguments presented by
appellants as to dependent claim 17.
From our study of the claims on appeal we note in passing a violation of 37 CFR
§1.75(b) as to the inclusion of claims 14, 16 and 18-21, which correspondingly appear
to be identical to the subject matter of independent claim 26 and its respective
dependent claims 27-29. The sole rejection of claims 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
record has been reversed. The subject matter presented by dependent claim 18/16/14
is equal to independent claim 26. Similar correspondence can be made with respect to
claims 19 and 27, 20 and 28 and 21 and 29. Since substantially identical subject
matter has been set forth in the corresponded-to claims and no substantial distinctions
appear to exist between them, the existence of the duplicate claims appears to violate
the provisions of this rule.
In closing, we have sustained the rejections of claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25,
30 and 31. On the other hand, we have reversed the rejections of claims 5-12, 15,
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007