Appeal 2007-1290
Application 09/861,548
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed September 8, 2005) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed April 19, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed November 8,
2005) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 9 and 13 through 15.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that Yamamoto, in column 7, lines
10-35, discloses storing indicator images which are different in size. The
Examiner's position appears to be that Yamamoto's left and right rear pickup
images are positioned in display regions 80'a, 80'b, and 80c, which are all
different sizes, and, thus, constitute indicator images which are different
sizes. Appellants contend (Br. 9-10) that Yamamoto's display image regions
80'a, 80'b, and 80c are regions, not indicator images. Further, Appellants
contend (Br. 10) that Yamamoto's vehicle image 36 cannot be the claimed
indicator image as Yamamoto discloses only a single vehicle image rather
than the claimed plural indicator images. Accordingly, Appellants contend
that Yamamoto fails to disclose indicator images. The first issue, therefore,
is whether Yamamoto teaches indicator images.
Each of the independent claims recites "indicator images, which are
different from each other in size." Appellants disclose (Specification,
paragraph [0017]) that "vehicle model images Mvhcb, Mvhcm, and Mvhcs
are exemplified for an indicator image in Claims." In Figures 16 and 18,
Yamamoto shows display regions 80'a, 80'b, and 80c, with 80c different in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013