Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
overlaying graphical information (e.g., text) on a video
image, it does not show an "overlay of one image on another,"
as recited in claim 2. This difference is not argued by
Appellant, but it would seem that better prior art must exist.
The Examiner applies Katz against claim 3 to show juxtaposing
image sources on a single display. While Katz shows
juxtaposing images (e.g., a video image from each cashier
lane, col. 3, lines 15-18), there is no teaching that the
juxtaposed images "obtain a wide-field image," as recited in
claim 3. This difference is not addressed by the Examiner,
but is also not argued by Appellant.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007