Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 The Appellants argue that, for the reason given with respect to claim 42, it
2 would not have been obvious to add Kirmuss’s display to Kithil’s apparatus. That
3 argument is not persuasive for the reason given above with respect to claim 42.
4 The Appellants argue that there would have been no motivation to add to
5 Kithil a camera that monitors activity inside a police vehicle and then use the
6 display for reviewing a video of the activity inside the police vehicle (Br. 7). That
7 argument is not convincing in view of the above-discussed disclosures by Sakoh of
8 capturing data inside as well as outside a vehicle (Sakoh, col. 1, ll. 20-21) and by
9 Kirmuss of using a VCR to record events on public transportation (Kirmuss,
10 ¶ 0023).
11 Claim 36
12 The Appellants argue that there would have been no motivation to
13 synchronize video data and occupant data on a display (Br. 8). One of ordinary
14 skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have displayed
15 synchronized video and occupant data in view of Sakoh’s disclosure of
16 synchronizing video and occupant data (Sakoh, col. 4, ll. 1-7; col. 27, ll. 4-8) and
17 Kirmuss’s disclosures of 1) using a VCR to record events that occur on public
18 transportation (Kirmuss, ¶ 0023), and 2) displaying synchronized video and text
19 data (Kirmuss, ¶ 0142).
20 Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
21 claims 32-39, 48 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and
22 Sakoh.
23 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 40, 41 and 54
24 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh, and Lemelson, and
25 claims 50-52 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh, and McMahon
26
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013