Appeal No. 1996-3647
Application No. 08/065,720
Based upon the foregoing, the two claimed image
presentation rates are identically disclosed by Cohen. Thus,
the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The 3
obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7 and 17 is likewise
sustained because of appellant’s grouping of the claims
(Brief, page 4).
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 11,
appellant argues (Brief, page 8) that:
Independent claim 11 recites that if the time
interval is greater than a predetermined duration,
the image is displayed. However, if the time
interval is less than the predetermined duration,
only a representative portion of the image is
displayed. This is advantageous because less
information can be presented and absorbed in the
shorter time. Cohen does not disclose or suggest
this feature of claim 11. Rather, Cohen is
concerned with generating and viewing a transition
between a first and second sequence of images. Roy
also does not disclose this feature of claim 11.
Roy simply teaches that multiple pictures of a
moving freight train can be taken and if important
numbers on the train span two successive pictures,
the data can be retrieved from memory and a
composite image can be displayed. However, Roy does
not disclose that the selection of either an image
or representative portion of the image is based on a
selected time interval allotted for display. This
would not have been obvious in view of Cohen and Roy
3In keeping with 37 CFR § 1.192(a), arguments not made by
appellant in the briefs were not considered on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007