Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 8
Application No. 09/241,700
appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to mount cameras around the garment or user
in attempting to capture a panoramic image, let alone mounting
them non-rigidly to a flexible garment” (brief, page 5). In this
regard, appellant asserts that:
Henley would have taught away from separating the
cameras from its specifically predisposed configuration
for obvious reasons that moving the cameras would
interfere with [the] carefully planned mounting
positions of the cameras, which positions are critical
to its operation. The only place that [they] could be
possibly mounted to the user without the user
interference would be the top of the user’s head.
Since the only feasible place that [the cameras] could
be mounted is on the head, the combination thus would
have taught away from mounting cameras on the user’s
garments worn below the user’s head to capture a
panoramic image.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Here, based on the combined teachings of the applied
references, we find ample support for the examiner’s position
that Henley does not teach away from mounting cameras that are
used in securing a panoramic image on articles of clothing to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007