Appeal No. 96-0538
Application 08/126,450
v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 118
S.Ct. 397 (1997).
Turning to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we agree with the examiner
(Answer, page 4) that Kellar discloses compositing of images 30 and 31 (Figure 2), with one image in
the foreground and another image in the background. We also agree with the examiner (Answer, page
4) that Kellar does not disclose “the images being displayed before the composed image is generated.”
In view of Kellar’s foreground and background scene teachings (column 5, lines 17 through 45; and
column 7, lines 13 through 20), we do not agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 16) that “Kellar
et al. never displays foreground and background scenes on the same display for any purpose
whatsoever.” We do, however, agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 16) that Kellar does not
provide “any technique for user specification and control and visual display of the type and order of
operations applied to the frames in the sequences.”
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 5) that “Barndt had disclosed at the time that the
invention was made that images on a storage means 44 could be placed on a display means 40,” but
appellants correctly concluded (Brief, page 16) that “‘the storage means 44, is actually a mask 44 with
preprinted images (silhouettes) that are scanned by a flying spot scanner CRT 40 in order to generate a
keyer control signal that switches two video programs in a keyer 74,” that “[t]he CRT 40 is not a
display means, and the silhouette images in the mask 44 are not placed on the CRT 40,” and that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007