Appeal No. 96-3211
Application 07/928,717
subtracting a delayed luminance signal from an input luminance
signal. (3:64-4:18.)
C. Other findings
15. The references reflect the level of skill in the art at
the time of invention. Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland,
713 F.2d 774, 779, 218 USPQ 673, 676 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Applicant
has not, on appeal, urged an alternative level of skill.
16. On appeal, Applicant has not presented any evidence of
secondary considerations supporting patentability.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claim interpretation
1. Claim 10 is not written in step-plus-function language.
2. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are written in means-plus-function
language. Applicant has not directly challenged the equivalence
of structures in the references except as specifically noted in
this opinion.
B. Grouping of claims
3. Applicant states that each of the claims on appeal are
argued separately and consequently stand or fall separately.
(Paper 33 at 7.) Our review of Applicant's briefs indicates that
the following groupings are argued separately with at least some
specificity: 1; 2-4; 5, 6 and 9; 7; 8; 10; 12; 13, 14, and 17;
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007