Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 The Appellants claim an in-vehicle recording system. Claim 55 is
2 illustrative:
3 55. An in-vehicle recording system, comprising:
4 a data capture module capturing vehicle data and occupant data;
5 a video capture module recording video data inside and outside the
6 vehicle; and
7 a data recorder in the vehicle, the data recorder recording the vehicle
8 data, the occupant data and the video data and continuously synchronizing
9 the occupant data with the vehicle data.
10
11 THE REFERENCES
12 Kithil US 6,014,602 Jan. 11, 2000
12 Lemelson
13 US 2002/0022927 A1 Feb. 21, 2002
13 McMahon
14 US 2003/0025793 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
15 (filed Jul. 31, 2002)
16 Kirmuss US 2003/0095688 A1 May 22, 2003
17 (filed Aug. 9, 2002)
18 Sakoh US 6,704,434 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
19 (filed Aug. 3, 2000)
20
21 THE REJECTIONS
22 The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 55 and 60 under
23 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sakoh; claims 32-34, 43-47 and 61 under
24 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sakoh in view of Kithil; claims 42 and 53 under
25 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kithil in view of Kirmuss; claim 54 under
26 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Lemelson; claims
27 32-39, 48 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kithil in view of Kirmuss
28 and Sakoh; claims 40, 41 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kithil in
29 view of Kirmuss, Sakoh and Lemelson; claims 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
30 obvious over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh and McMahon; claims 56 and 57
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013