Appeal No. 96-3640
Application No. 08/184,794
Applicant in essence argues that his system
distinguishes from Gage because the centering
processing of Gage is outside of and subsequent to
the camera pickup structure, whereas applicant
provides such processing within a composite camera
apparatus.
However, nothing either explicitly or
implicitly is recited in the claims to provide such
distinction.
Moreover, the skilled artisan could reasonably
consider the processing of Gage as being included
with his camera pickup section, as a composite
camera unit.
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have
concluded that the rejection of the independent claims 1, 8
and 14 should not be sustained. With respect to claim 1, the
examiner admits that the specific gating signals are not
disclosed in Gage. There is simply no teaching of image area
or storage area gate signals or serial register gate signals.
Nor is there a teaching of determining timing relationships
between gate signals, including display timing signals, in
response to vertical and horizontal adjust signals.
Furthermore, the examiner has provided no motivation why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Gage to
determine timing relationships between gating signals in
response to vertical and horizontal adjust signals.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007