Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
set forth in section "A" apply equally to this rejection.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
21, 23-28, 30 and 32-37 under the judicially created doctrine
of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-19 of Lemelson
'668 in view of Lemelson '563.
C. Rejection of claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 and 34-37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lemelson '563 in
view of Camras and Kimura
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 and 34-37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Lemelson '563 in view of
Camras and Kimura.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not meet19
the express limitations of each of the independent claims that
a single hand-held, box-like housing supports a camera, a
video recorder/reproducer and a printer. Appellant asserts
that the '563 patent shows no housing at all and cites the
19 Brief, pages 4-5.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007