Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
Appellants further contend that changing the track being
displayed based on user input as taught by Preston does not
teach or suggest combining the location selection of Aisaka
with the video icons of Tonomura. However, as the examiner
points out, at pages 4-5 of the answer, it is not the changing
of the track in Preston that is important to the instant
rejection but, rather, Preston is used to teach pointer
selection of pixels within a moving image, a teaching which,
when combined with Aisaka’s teaching of picking still image
positions with a pointer and Tonomura’s teaching of displaying
multiple selectable live-motion image regions, results in the
claimed subject matter.
It appears that appellants’ arguments are nothing more
than arguments against each reference individually as to the
deficiency of that reference. However, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where
the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We do not contend that there is no argument that could be
made to overcome the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1 through 39.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007