Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over VanZeeland and Oliver, as applied to the
rejection of claim 11, further in view of Katz.
Claims 7-9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over VanZeeland, Oliver, and Brubaker.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over VanZeeland, Oliver, and Brubaker, as
applied to the rejection of claim 12, further in view of
Cooper.
OPINION
The obviousness issues argued are (1) whether Oliver
discloses "mixing" as described in the specification, and
(2) whether there is motivation to combine.
Appellant argues (Br6: RBr2) that Oliver has "mixing"
which is completely different from the mixing occurring in
Appellant's invention as disclosed in the originally filed
specification. It is argued (Br7) that Oliver discloses
frequency division multiplexing as opposed to combining two or
more video signals so that a single video image comprises a
composite of two or more transmitted video images as described
in the specification at page 3, lines 28-34. Appellant
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007