Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
stated that where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner in relying only
on Kondo has failed to show that the prior art teaches an
image movement vector detection apparatus for detecting an
image movement vector from an image signal produced by a video
camera comprising vibration vector detecting means and an
image movement vector detecting means for detecting an image
movement vector representing movement of an object within an
image represented by the image signal based on both the image
signal and the vibration vector as recited in Appellant's
claim 1.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing
court requires this
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007