Appeal No. 1996-3647
Application No. 08/065,720
because there is not the slightest suggestion of or
motivation for determining whether to display an
image or just a representative portion based on the
selected time allotted for display. Moreover,
display time is not even an issue in Roy.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. Although Cohen
dynamically changes the time interval for displaying
subsequent still images during the transition from a first
sequence of still images to a second sequence of still images
(claim 1), Cohen neither teaches nor would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the sequential display of
images or representative portion thereof based upon a
determination of whether a time interval is greater than or
less than some predetermined duration (claim 11). With
respect to the video display teachings of Roy, appellant has
correctly concluded that “display time is not even an issue in
Roy” (Brief, page 8).
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 11
through 13, 19 and 20 is reversed because the display of an
image or a portion thereof based upon two time intervals
compared to a predetermined duration is neither taught by nor
would have been suggested by the applied references (Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007