Appeal No. 1999-2824
Application 08/481,408
such as the one disclosed in Fig. 7 of Lett, would include the
capability to freeze the image on the screen utilizing the
pause button.
Appellant argues that "the generated VRR feature is a
'freeze frame display using local memory associated with the
video device'" (Br8), which is not suggested by either Lett
with Hatakenaka, nor by the fact that a conventional VCR may
perform a freeze frame operation.
Lett with Hatakenaka do not suggest the feature control
limitation of step (a). We further agree with Appellant that
neither Lett with Hatakenaka suggests "generating a freeze
frame display using local memory associated with said video
device." Conventional VCRs keep scanning the tape for a
freeze frame. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 47 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 43-47 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007