Appeal No. 2005-2619
Application No. 09/734,826
fixed connection with the moveable camera. (Brief at pages 8-9). We find that
Schaffrina teaches the co-location of the audio and video component on the single
movable housing which would suggest that the microphone of Uehara be co-located
with the camera. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive.
Appellant argues that Uehara teaches away from modifying the microphone
configuration, but appellant does not identify a specific teaching away. (Brief at pages
9-12). Rather, appellant identifies the benefits disclosed by Uehara which we
distinguish from a specific teaching away. Therefore, we do not find the argument
persuasive.
Appellant argues that Schaffrina fails to disclose that both the camera and the
microphone, while fixed to the same vertical translator, can be simultaneously
positioned optimally. (Brief at page 10). We do not find this argument commensurate in
scope with independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive,
and we find that appellant has not shown error in the prima facie case of obviousness
nor adequately rebutted the prima facie case. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 which appellant has elected to group
therewith.
CONCLUSION
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007