Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
page 9.) We will select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for group one
and dependent claim 5 as the representative claim for group two.
GROUP ONE
Appellants argue that each of the independent claims recites at least a video
signal processing device which is connectable to an electronic endoscope and that
feeds a serial electric digital video signal from a video-signal processing device to a
piece of compatible external digital peripheral equipment which is not taught or
rendered obvious by either reference. (See brief at page 9.) We disagree with
appellants, and note that both Kikuchi and Nagasaki are directed to imaging with an
endoscope, and Nagasaki teaches that a video movie camera may be employed and
still images are fetched and stored in “mass storage of a digital VTR, a digital video file,
or the like.” (See Kikuchi at column 2, line 34 and Nagasaki at column 10, lines 28-33.)
Even though Nagasaki does not specifically address whether the “mass storage of a
digital VTR” is the same mass storage 25 which is shown in Figure 8 and discussed in
columns 10 and 11, and the examiner did not rely on this portion of Nagasaki as the
external peripheral, it is our opinion that the parallel to serial and serial to parallel
conversions and data compression and decompression would have either implied or
taught the use of an external digital peripheral or would have suggested to one of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007