Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
further argues (RBr2) that claim 11 specifies that there is a
resultant signal coming from a mixing of video signals and
that this resultant signal is viewed at the control station.
The Examiner states that there is no need to refer to the
specification because the term "mixing" is well understood in
the art and is unambiguous and the claims do not require any
specific type of mixing (EA8).
Unfortunately, neither Appellant nor the Examiner provide
a definition of "mixing" to support their respective
positions. Appellant seems to admit that Oliver shows
"mixing," just not the kind of mixing that was intended by the
specification. If this were so, we would agree with the
Examiner that "mixing" does not have to be the same kind of
mixing disclosed in the specification. The limitations of
mixing to output a "resultant signal" and "viewing of said
resultant signal . . . on one or more display devices" in
claim 11 do not distinguish over a frequency division
multiplexed signal, which can be considered a resultant,
multiplexed signal and where each multiplexed channel can be
viewed on a different display. However, we do not agree with
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007