Appeal No. 1998-2554
Application 08/527,334
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted
prior art (APA) in the specification at page 1, lines 1-29,
VanZeeland, and Brubaker.
The APA discloses that video-assisted remote control of
machines using multiple cameras was known. One approach to
viewing the cameras is described as follows (specification,
p. 1, lines 22 to p. 2, line 3):
In one variant of this first approach, the video
signals from several cameras are assembled (for example
in groups of four) to form a single image divided into
several zones (for example four zones), each one of which
corresponds to the image given by one of the cameras.
This single image is transmitted on a single transmission
channel and displayed with these same zones at reception.
Such an approach not only reduces the size of the
different partial images but is difficult to interpret
owing to the fact that the arrangement of the partial
images (each occupying one quadrant of the display
screen) does not correspond to the arrangement of the
cameras.
We find this describes "mixing" four images into a resultant
image that can be displayed on a single screen, transmitting
the resultant signal to the remote control station on a single
transmission channel, and viewing the resultant signal at the
remote control station on a display device. At the oral
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007