Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
movie cameras.
In addition, Appellant argues that Camras does not 24
provide any motivation to combine a camera, display unit, and
recording/reproduction device in a common housing.
In the rejection, the Examiner states "It would have 25
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to build all of the elements of Lemelson in a
portable video recording unit in a manner as taught in Camras
because Camras teaches an advantage of readily carrying about
without difficulty with the portable video camera and such
advantage being desirable to achieve efficient system
operation in Lemelson."
In response to Appellant's arguments the Examiner
asserts that Camras teaches that "a portable camera can26
supporting [sic] a variety [sic] separate elements such as
camera, receiver, indicating means, and a control circuit.
From the teaching of Camras, one of ordinary skill in the art
24 Brief, page 5.
25Answer, page 11.
26 Answer, page 14.
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007