Appeal No. 2003-0384
Application 09/557,718
value, Chapin’s housing body and tapered front end would coact to
position the camera in a stream of water with the front end
oriented upstream and the back end oriented downstream if the
housing were initially so oriented and not subjected to yawing
forces. This is all that is required to meet the broad claim
limitations at issue.
Hence, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in claim 7 is unobvious over Chapin is not persuasive.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 7, and dependent claim 9 which is grouped by
the appellant as standing or falling therewith (see page 4 in the
main brief), as being unpatentable over Chapin.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Chapin
in view of Carrington or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 10 and 11 as being unpatentable over Chapin
in view of Rink.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further defines the housing
as being torpedo shaped. Conceding that Chapin’s housing is not
so shaped, the examiner turns to Carrington for its disclosure of
a submersible camera having a housing which is arguably torpedo
shaped and concludes that it would have been obvious to impart
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007