Appeal No. 2003-1347 Page 5
Application No. 09/825,044
elevators, we note that whether Platt images space inside the elevator is not relevant to
anticipation of claim 1, because claim 1 does not recite the images are taken of the
inside of the elevator.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 to 6 as these claims stand or fall
with claim 1 because claims 2 to 6 have not been separately argued by appellants as
required in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv), in effect at the time the brief was filed.
Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be treated as falling with claim
1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Platt, appellants’ admitted prior art and Sasao. As appellants do not
argue any claims in particular, we select claim 9 as representative of the grouping and
decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis thereof, with claims 7, 8, 10 and 11
standing or falling therewith. We note, at the outset, that claim 9 merely recites that the
images from the camera may be stored on a replaceable storage medium. The images
from Platt’s imaging device are fully capable of such storage (note Platt’s video memory
22) and appellants have not argued that this is not the case.
Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Platt and Sasao do not disclose
a system whereby the area inside the elevator is imaged. This argument is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007