Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
Appellant argues that even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that it would have been obvious to display video and
textual data on the same monitor, “clauses (a), (b), (c), and (e)
are not suggested by the prior art and are not addressed by the
rejection” (Brief, page 13). We agree. As an example, a SMPTE
timing signal indicating elapsed time in step (c) of claim 1 is
never generated in Ardis, so how could Ardis ever perform the
time comparison in step (d). The obviousness rejection of claims
1, 4 and 5 is reversed because Ardis and Nomura neither teach nor
would they have suggested the steps outlined in claim 1.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3 is reversed
because the teachings of Beausoleil do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the combined teachings of Ardis and Nomura.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7 and 10 through
12, Slade is cited because of the use of a graphics card in a
video recording/playback environment. Even if we assume for the
sake of argument that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to “provide the video system of Ardis
et al with a graphic card as shown by Blade [sic, Slade] to
permit selected data to be conveniently and easily added to the
video data prior to recording, thereby improving the flexibility
of the system, as required by claims 6-7" (Answer, page 5), the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007