Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 9
Application No. 09/241,700
worn by a person using cameras. In this regard, the silence of
Henley with respect to such a garment-mounted camera arrangement
does not constitute a teaching away. Indeed, Henley teaches that
the cameras can have overlapping fields of view and that the
digital output from such cameras can be processed for digital
separation of redundant pixels and removal of distortions
therefrom. See, e.g., column 3, lines 13-22 and column 4, lines
3-10 of Henley. That disclosure of Henley does not suggest that
the cameras of Henley must be mounted in an absolutely precise
fashion relative to each other for the product signals of each
camera to be used to form a panoramic image. Thus, a body
mounting arrangement via a garment, as here contemplated, would
not be specifically taught away from by Henley. Nor does the
teaching in the preferred embodiments of Henley with respect to
arranging the cameras in a housing amount to a teaching away from
other camera arrangements that would have commended themselves to
one of ordinary skill in the art based on the combined teachings
of the references for reasons explained by the examiner in the
answer. In our view, appellant’s arguments herein simply do not
take into account the proposition that all of the disclosures in
the applied references, including non-preferred embodiments, must
be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007