Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
power when it is supposed to be performing its function of
identifying the first event. Barber does not remedy this
defect. Furthermore, in accordance with appellant's Donaldson
analysis (Brief, page 63), we find that the examiner's on/off
switch is not equivalent to the disclosed indicators of second
events and therefore fails to meet the claimed "means for
identifying." The examiner's only response in the answer
(page 13) is that "[t]he references show equivalent elements
performing the same functions as claimed." However, as
illustrated by appellant, the elements of the references do
not perform the same function, and, thus, the references do
not show equivalent elements. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claims 3, 29, and 30.
Claim 4 recites, in pertinent part, "a means for
augmenting the received digital samples with a plurality of
augmenting digital samples representing augmenting data
whereby the resulting sequence of digital samples can be
converted to an electrical signal." The examiner states
(Final Rejection, page 9) that Beaulier discloses "a means
(32,34,50,52) for augmenting the received digital samples
(background frame which is the digital data of the scene) with
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007