Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
separately.
Dependent claim 41 is similar to claim 1 except that it
recites that the user entered inputs are converted into video
signals. The examiner interprets “video signals” as requiring
nothing more than signals “which are suitable, after further
processing, to be displayed as images on a video display”
[supplemental answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues that a
photographic image is not a video signal, and that video
refers to the visual elements of a television [substitute
reply brief, page 5].
Regardless of whose definition of video signals is
correct, we are of the view that the recitation of video
signals would have been obvious to the artisan in view of the
collective teachings of the applied prior art. Although Ishii
is primarily directed to a still camera, we see no reason why
the artisan would not have found it obvious to apply the exact
same principles to a video camera. There is nothing about the
processing of images in Ishii which would preclude a similar
operation being performed on “video signals.” Therefore, we
sustain this rejection of claim 41 and of claims 13 and 14
which depend therefrom.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007