Appeal No. 2001-2110
Application No. 09/095,462
frequency continuous filming and image filtering features,
respectively. We find nothing in these references, however, which
would overcome the above noted deficiency in Secor.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 25,
28 and 32, nor of claims 29 and 33 dependent thereon based on the
combination of Secor, Blessinger, and Jones.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34-36 in which
Bamford is added to the combination of Secor, Blessinger, and
Jones, we do not sustain this rejection as well. We recognize that
Bamford, applied by the Examiner as providing a teaching of a
vehicle camera mounted on a rearview mirror assembly, does provide
a disclosure of providing a front view of a vehicle surroundings.
We agree with Appellants, however, that the system of Bamford is
directed to a different problem with a different solution than the
other applied prior art.
Our interpretation of Bamford coincides with that of
Appellants, i.e., Bamford’s system is an impact actuated system
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007