Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
reverse the rejection of claims 16 through 22 and 24 through
26.
Claim 34 is the method equivalent of claim 14 and thus
includes a step of generating a signal which corresponds to
the means recited at the end of claim 14. We have already
determined that appellant's generation of an electrical signal
from a sequence of integers representing the image and the
time at which the sequence was received differs from Coutta's
video mixing of two analog signals representing the image and
the time, respectively. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 34.
Claims 36 through 42 all depend from claim 34 and thus
include the same method step lacking from Tanaka and Coutta.
Since none of the additional references applied against these
dependent claims overcome the above-noted deficiency, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 36 through 42.
We make the following new ground of rejection under
37 CFR § 1.196(b). Claims 28, 30, 33, 37, and 43 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being vague and
indefinite.
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007