Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
combined teachings would still lack the monitoring and editing
according to a SMPTE timing signal to produce a modified video
signal as required by claims 6 and 12 (Brief, pages 16 through
19). The obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7 and 10 through 12
is, therefore, reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9 is reversed
because the teachings of Beausoleil do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the combined teachings of Ardis and Slade.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007