Appeal No. 1999-0081
Application No. 08/506,645
and by inference, its dependent claim 2 through 4. As
indicated at the bottom of page 4 of the reply brief,
SUPERPAINT clearly does not show an enlargement or reduction
of the range of the displayed region, that is, it clearly does
not show a change of size of the displayed region by the
operation of the shift key because it only is taught to
restrict a pencils’s trail to either a vertical or horizontal
motion. Therefore, we construe the language of claim 1 of
“altering a range of positions of the video signals” as
requiring a change or alteration of size of the video signals
such as to either enlarge or reduce them. In light of these
considerations, we also reverse the rejection of independent
claim 5 for similar reasons since it particularly recites the
feature of “range data” at the end of this claim.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 17 under 35 U.S.C.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007