Court Opinion

ID: 9479873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:31:15.146943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:20.113056
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part, concurring in part.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s decision, vacating and remanding the case to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for a redetermi-nation of the merits as to claims 18 through 20.
As the majority opinion holds, the Board erred in finding that dependent claims 21 through 32 were not separately argued, and, thus, not entitled to review. A review *331of the record indicates that, in fact, they were adequately argued separately by applicant. Accordingly, I agree that that part of the appeal must be remanded for a ruling on the merits of those claims. On the other hand, the Board fully considered the rejection of claims 18 through 20 and its decision affirming the rejection is properly before us for review in this appeal.
Claims 18 through 20 were rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1982) in view of United States Patents Nos. 2,339,202 issued to Stechbart and 3,635,140 issued to Wolf. Upon review of the board’s opinion and Beaver’s arguments here with respect to claims 18-20, I am not persuaded of error by the board. Thus, I would affirm for the following reasons.
Specifically Beaver argues that the prior art does not teach a surveillance camera housing which has a horizontally positioned separate drive means and magazine chamber, with the latter having an opening in a side wall for receipt of a film magazine. As the prior art references illustrate, certain types of cameras utilize housings oriented in a vertical position (Stechbart) and others, oriented in a horizontal position (Wolf) — like the camera claimed. In Wolf’s horizontally oriented camera, the film magazine and drive means are separated by a horizontally positioned wall. I agree with the board that the encasement of the film magazine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Stech-bart discloses a camera having such an enclosed magazine chamber. Wolf teaches a chamber underneath the film magazine that encloses a drive means. Stechbart’s magazine chamber has a side wall which receives a film magazine. I agree with the board that choosing which wall of the film magazine shall have an opening to receive a film magazine would be an obvious design choice.
Beaver also argues that the prior art does not disclose a transversely extending tongue (in the housing wall) and groove (in the film magazine) component for repeatedly positioning the film magazine at a fixed position relative to the camera lens mount at the front of the camera housing. I agree with the board that the references clearly suggest that the film magazine be interlocked in alignment with the focal plane of the lens. Stechbart teaches interlocking means, namely “lugs” for similar positioning of the film magazine in the magazine chamber. As the board indicates, Beaver’s substitution of a tongue and groove means for the means disclosed in Stechbart for the same purpose, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In view of the teachings of the prior art I am unpersuaded by Beaver’s arguments that the board erred in affirming the rejection of these claims under section 103.