Appeal No. 96-0538
Application 08/126,450
“[i]nsofar as Barndt is understood, it would seem to have no relevance to the claimed invention.”
According to the examiner (Answer, page 5), Ichinose shows that “images (Fig. 5) from a
memory 25 could be generated on a display means 1,” and that “such images can be interchanged (col.
2, line 60).” Notwithstanding such teachings in Ichinose, we agree with appellants’
argument (Brief, page 17) that Ichinose would not have suggested “visually displaying the user specified
type and order of operations applied to the frames.”
Turning lastly to Ghosh, we agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 18) that “[t]his prior
art patent includes selection means for controlling the priority of display of overlaid objects but such
prioritization is not controlled by the user,” and that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in this
reference of the claimed flow graph interface for user specification and control and visual display of the
type and order of special effects - process operations.”
Based upon the foregoing, appellants correctly concluded (Brief, page 18) that “combining the
teachings of the applied reference[s] would still not produce the invention as defined in Appellants’
independent claims.” The obviousness rejection of the claims is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007