Appeal No. 1999-2345
Application No. 08/610,758
Because we find appellants' arguments to be not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1, and appellants have not shown the examiner's findings with respect to the
teachings of the references to be in error, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Finelli and Beveridge. Arguments not relied
upon are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a) (“Any arguments or authorities
not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences, unless good cause is shown.”) Claims 3 and 5-7 fall with claim 1, as
appellants have chosen not to rely on the limitations of the dependent claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7).
We also sustain the rejection of claim 4 under section 103 as being unpatentable
over Finelli, Beveridge, and Itoh, and the rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable
over Finelli, Beveridge, and Nagano. Appellants have not alleged error in the
examiner's finding that Itoh would have suggested the further limitations of claim 4,
drawn to well-known video camera operations. Nor have appellants alleged error in the
examiner's finding that Nagano would have suggested the LCD display monitor as
recited in instant claim 2.
We note that appellants' specification, at pages 1 through 2, and in instant
Figure 1, describes a prior art video printer system having a video printer 31 connected
to a video camera 32 and a video monitor 34. We further note that Finelli suggests,
especially at column 6, line 65 through column 7, line 3, controlling functions of an
associated electronic camera by means of switches in a printer control panel.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007