Appeal No. 2000-0141 Page 8
Application No. 08/673,693
skill.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)).
Here, in Ruoff’s television apparatus “only a portion of
the [displayed] image subtended by the gaze of the viewer's
eye is of high resolution; the remainder is of low
resolution.” Col. 3, ll. 23-26. The examiner provides no
extrinsic evidence, however, that the high resolution portion
is allocated additional bandwidth as compared to the low
resolution remainder. To the contrary, the reference implies
that the high resolution portion and the low resolution
remainder are allocated equal bandwidth. Specifically, “[t]he
temporal scanning rate is the same for all lines, both high-
and low-resolution.” Col. 5, ll. 5-6.
Even further to the contrary, Ruoff also implies that the
high resolution portion is allocated less bandwidth than the
low resolution remainder. Specifically, in the high
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007