Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
would have no difficulty to build the camera . . . and the
printer of Lemelson in the portable housing in a manner as
taught in Camras in order to readily carry the apparatus of
Lemelson without difficulty."
In addition, the Examiner finds that "The artisan would 27
have recognized the obviousness of carrying the apparatus of
Lemelson without any difficulty by supporting the camera, the
video recorder, the video-signal display unit and the printer
in a common portable housing."
Finally, the Examiner argues that even if, arguendo, the
proposed combination of the references does not teach the
inclusion a printer in the camera housing, such inclusion is
merely considered to be a well known design option obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art because maintaining parts
fixed as a single unit provides no significant functional or
patentable differences.
Turning to independent claims 21, 28 and 32, we agree
with Appellant that the cited references do not meet the
express limitation of each of these claims that a single hand-
27 Answer, page 14.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007