Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
claim 17. We thus cannot sustain the rejection of the claim under the principles of
anticipation required by 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The rejections against the claims depending from independent claims 5, 9, and
17 do not remedy the basic deficiencies in the rejection applied against the base
claims. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9, 17, 19, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, since Duvent and Eppley as applied in combination with
Fandrianto fail to remedy the deficiencies of Fandrianto, we do not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 10, 15, 16, 18, or 20.
We turn to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Press and Larson. At the outset, we note that, contrary to
appellant’s indication at pages 19 and 20 of the Brief, the Fandrianto reference is not
applied in any standing rejection against claims 1, 3, 13, 14, and 21.
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 (Answer at 4-5), the examiner finds that
Press discloses all that is claimed except for the “digital communication link.” The
examiner relies on Larson for suggestion of modification of the Press apparatus.
Appellant contests the rejection by pointing out perceived deficiencies in the
Press disclosure. First, appellant asserts that the “scanning or reading” described by
Press is “not analogous” to the video signal processing of the claimed invention. (Brief
at 21.) Appellant does not, however, offer any reasoning or evidence in support of the
assertion. We are unconvinced that the scanning or reading described by the reference
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007