Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 2
Application No. 09/241,700
a plurality of digital cameras supported non-
rigidly at predetermined positions on the garment to
have overlapping fields of view to allow a simultaneous
360° field of view around the user;
user activating means for activating selected
digital cameras to cause the selected digital cameras
to simultaneously capture digital images for forming
panoramic image;
a storage memory for storing the captured digital
images,
wherein the garment is electrically conductive and
provides electrical connections between the digital
cameras and the user activating means.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Shiomi 5,047,793 Sep. 10, 1991
Henley 5,657,073 Aug. 12, 1997
Winningstad 5,886,739 Mar. 23, 1999
In addition, appellant relies on the following prior art in
responding to the examiner’s obviousness position:
Ritchey1 5,130,794 July, 14, 1992
1 Ritchie is not relied upon by the examiner in the
statement of either rejection as correctly noted by appellant
(reply brief, page 4). However, appellant (reply brief, page 4)
argues to the effect that Ritchie would have supported a
proposition of appellant that is asserted in arguing against the
examiner’s stated rejections. Consequently, Ritchie is part of
the evidence of record that we consider because of appellant’s
reliance thereon in opposition to the examiner’s stated
rejections. CF., In re Hedges 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007