Appeal No. 2000-0979
Application 08/767,743
A scanner comprising:
means for converting contents of a film frame into a
video signal,
means for post-processing the video signal, and
means for inserting a scaling signal into the video
signal before post-processing the video signal.
B. Discussion
The examiner has objected to claims 7 and 9 because of
certain informalities. The Board has jurisdiction to decide
issues involving claims that are finally or twice rejected.
Claims that are objected to are not reviewable by the Board.
Therefore, we do not address the examiner’s objections to
claim 7 and claim 9.
The rejections of the claims on appeal cannot be
sustained. A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not
be construed as an affirmative indication that the applicants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007