Appeal No. 2001-2110
Application No. 09/095,462
relied on a per se rule of obviousness that a change in position of
parts is not patentable. The issue of obviousness must always be
determined on a case by case basis considering the specific
recitations of the claimed invention and the specific teachings of
the applied prior art.
We further agree with Appellants (Brief, page 5; Reply
Brief, page 2) that the claimed invention does not involve the mere
changing of position of the vehicle camera to provide a front view
as asserted by the Examiner, but rather provides an additional lens
to add a front view presentation in addition to a rear view. In
any case, even accepting, arguendo, the Examiner’s assertion that
Appellants are merely claiming the change in position of a vehicle
camera, we find no compelling reason for the skilled artisan to do
so in Secor. The vehicle camera system of Secor is designed to aid
the driver while driving a car by providing a screen display of
views of surroundings which are not readily seen, i.e., the rear
and sides. In our opinion, there would be no motivation for
positioning a camera to provide a front view which, as pointed out
by Appellants, would merely duplicate the driver’s own front view
vision through the windshield.
We have also reviewed the Blessinger and Jones references
applied by the Examiner to address the claimed predetermined
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007