Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 7
Application No. 09/241,700
wraps around the user as a frame for mounting the cameras. In
other situations, such as in the case of a person desiring to
take pictures of a child at play (see column 6, lines 51-65 of
Winningstad), one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that a less rigid camera attaching arrangement could
be used, such as using Velcro to attach the camera to the
garment. After all, in an obviousness assessment, skill is
presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack
thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, insofar as the applied references
themselves are concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure
of each for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the
art, including the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Based on the above and for reasons further articulated in
the answer, we determine that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
embraced by representative claim 9 and representative claim 12.
Appellant does not dispute that panoramic camera systems are
known or that mounting single cameras on a user is known. Rather
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007