Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
relatives for memory".
In addition, the Examiner admits that this rejection 13
over the claims of the parent '101 patent in view of Lemelson
'563 does not teach or suggest the claimed feature of
supporting a printer in a common housing. However, the
Examiner asserts that whether or not the printer and printing
trigger of '563 are included in the housing of '101, is merely
a well known design option obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art, because
maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit provides no
significant functional or patentable differences.
Turning first to Appellant's claims 21, 28 and 32, we
find that these claims expressly recite limitations directed
to a hand-held, box-like housing" which supports a camera, 14
video recorder/reproduction device, and a printer . We agree 15
with Examiner's finding that the proposed obviousness-type
13 Answer, page 22.
14 Claim 21, subsection (a); claim 28, subparagraph (a);
claim 32, subparagraph (a).
15 Claim 21, section (a), subparagraph (iv); claim 28,
subparagraph (h); claim 32, subparagraph (a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007