Appeal No. 2003-0384
Application 09/557,718
such a shape to the housing of Chapin as “[d]oing so would allow
the camera system to easily move under the water at a high
pressure” (answer, page 5). As pointed out by the appellant,
however, Carrington’s lens is positioned adjacent the front,
rather than the back, of the housing so as to be oriented
upstream relative to a stream of water. Given this difference
with Chapin’s camera, the only suggestion for selectively
combining the two references so as to arrive at the subject
matter recited in claim 8 stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Claim 10 depends from claim 7 and recites a fin attached to
the housing adjacent the back end thereof, with the fin having a
longitudinal axis which extends parallel to a longitudinal axis
of the housing. Because Chapin’s housing has no such fin, the
examiner relies on Rink’s disclosure of an underwater camera
having a housing 10 with a longitudinally extending fin 50 at its
back end and submits that it would have been obvious to attach
Rink’s fin to the anchor flange 38 of Chapin’s housing since
“[d]oing so would allow the camera system to maintain the camera
position so that the camera easily captures an image of a
particular object” (answer, page 4). As is the case with
Carrington’s camera, however, Rink’s lens is positioned adjacent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007