Appeal No. 95-0840
Application 08/029,343
Under both tests the claimed invention must be viewed from
the artisan’s perspective, the one reasonably skilled in the art.
As to the enablement issue, we are in agreement with appellants’
position briefly stated at the middle of page 3 of the brief on
appeal that each of the recited elements in the claims on appeal
have corresponding structural and/or functional correlation to
the structural elements shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of the
specification’s drawing figures. Each of the respectively shown
elements is well known in the video signal processing art anyway.
Irrespective of the label attached to the claimed invention, we
are not persuaded by any of the examiner’s reasoning that the
artisan would have required undue experimentation to make and use
the presently claimed invention.
The real position apparently advocated by the examiner is
some form of misdescriptive labeling of the claimed invention in
the preamble as a non-additive video mixer. Initially, we note
that no such corresponding language appears in the body of each
independent claim on appeal. Therefore, the label of a non-
additive mixer in the preamble of each of these independent
claims appears to us to be a mere end use limitation that has no
real significant meaning in the body of the claim. Even if it
did, the examiner’s reasoning, even if it were correct, does not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007