Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent '101
patent in view of Lemelson '563 does not teach or suggest the
claimed features of supporting a printer in a common housing.
We find that the Lemelson '563 patent is directed to a 16
method for recording a large quantity of information of image
frame phenomena, such as document recording in a form which is
easily recorded though not visually monitorable as recorded.
Its controls are operated from a console (45) and there is no
teaching that the system is portable or mounted in a unitary
housing. This apparatus and its use thus differs
substantially from Appellant's claimed invention which is
directed to a hand held portable video unit which supports a
camera, video recorder/reproduction device, and a printer.
We find that the Examiner's statement of the motivation
to combine the disclosed claims 1-22 of the '101 patent with
the '563 printer being that a hard copy can be given to
friends and relatives for memory is without basis from express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
16 Column 1, lines 59-63.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007