Appeal No. 2005-2272
Application 09/791,656
teaching a camera that is directed at the airspace in front of an
airplane and at the pilot of the airplane. The examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to combine the
teachings of Joao and Lee. With respect to claim 4, the examiner
additionally finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to apply the teachings of Joao to a train in addition to the
other motor vehicles taught by Joao [answer, pages 3-9].
Appellant argues that none of the cameras disclosed in
Lee is directed at the airspace in front of the plane nor are
they concerned with viewing the airspace. Thus, appellant argues
that the combined teachings of Joao and Lee would not result in
the claimed invention. With respect to claims 4 and 7, appellant
argues that Lee does not teach or suggest using the camera in a
boat or other type of vehicle. With respect to claim 9,
appellant also argues that a train is not a motor vehicle as it
is defined by Joao or in common usage of the term [brief, pages
4-8].
The examiner responds that camera 16 of Lee is a
panoramic camera that provides a wide-angle view of the right and
left wings from the rudder of the airplane. The examiner asserts
that this wide-angle view includes the airspace in front of the
airplane. The examiner also notes that Joao teaches the use of a
camera in a boat and in other motor vehicles. The examiner notes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007