Appeal No. 1998-0871
Application No. 08/406,301
system. Although not brought to our attention by either appellants or the examiner, Lim teaches that the
display on the LCD is projected on a wall through the eyepiece by changing the amount of light
supplied to the rear of the LCD panel (56j) by the light source (56g), which is controlled by light
amount controller (56f) (col. 11, line 61 - col. 12, line 22). Lim does not disclose the use of a jack
from the video signal processing circuitry (fig. 7) to the projector. Upon adding a tuner and switch to
the VCR of Lim, the signal from the tuner would be displayed and processed through the projector in
the same manner as the signals from the camera and VCR, i.e., without the use of a jack.
Appellants assert that the prior art references would not have achieved the result of avoiding
manual controls. The examiner’s position (final rejection, page 3) is that it would have been obvious to
include the remote zoom control of Miyashita into Lim so that the operator could conveniently control
the zoom function of the projector. We find that Miyashita discloses a video projection system having
zoom processing means (col. 14, lines 33-38 and col. 16, lines 31-46), and we are in agreement with
the examiner that to operate the zoom processing means from the key application part for the
convenience of the operator would have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by the
teachings of Miyashita.
Accordingly, it is our judgment that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have provided the system of Lim with a tuner and switching means as taught by Dunlap in order to
increase the functionality of Lim’s VCR by including a tuner within a single device, and that it would
(9)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007