Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
With the above definition, appellants argue that Nagasaki does not disclose 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 as set forth in the independent
claims. (See brief at pages 14-15.) We disagree with appellants. The examiner
maintains that Nagasaki teaches the use of parallel to serial converters and that skilled
artisans would have been motivated to incorporate the use thereof into the arrangement
of Kikuchi. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner maintains that the motivation would
have been for the transmission of the digital signal to a remote location for high quality
image. While we would agree with the examiner that this may be a compelling
motivation, we find no express teaching in Nagasaki or Kikuchi to suggest this
transmission. The examiner appears to modify the rejection in the response to the
arguments section where the examiner relies upon assembly 26, 27, 28, and 29 in
Figure 8 of Nagasaki as an external peripheral device. (See answer at page 4.) While
the examiner leaves a question as to the exact portion of Nagasaki or Kikuchi that
would provide the serial electric digital video signal from a video signal processing
device to a piece of compatible external digital peripheral equipment as set forth in the
independent claims, it is clear from the teachings of Nagasaki and the various
embodiments that there are a great number of alternatives in the processing and output
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007