Appeal 2007-0016
Application 10/700,496
7, we note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive
with the respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim
2, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection of claim 7.
In addressing the language of claim 7 which requires that the camera and
microphone are mounted on different surfaces of the binoculars, the
Examiner has added the teachings of Nagumo to Wu. According to the
Examiner (Answer 7), the cameras in Wu are designated by the reference
numerals 2a and 2b and, as illustrated in Nagumo’s Figure 1A, are located
on a different binocular surface from the microphone.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Nagumo, however, coincides
with that of Appellants, i.e., contrary to the Examiner’s contention, the
cameras are designated by reference numerals 1a and 1b in Nagumo and, as
illustrated in Nagumo’s Figure 1, are located on the same surface as the
microphone (5a, 5b). We find no basis for the Examiner’s finding that the
cameras in Nagumo are the illustrated elements 2a and 2b which are
unambiguously identified by Nagumo as the camera controllers and not the
cameras. We further find ourselves constrained to agree with Appellants’
interpretation of Nagumo’s disclosure since the Examiner has not responded
to Appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013