Appeal No. 1997-3145 Page 8
Application No. 08/058,199
enlarged image display region relative to an enlargement
target region over an original image as recited in the
claims." Appellants further assert (brief, page 9) that
Waller does not teach a system which displays an enlarged
image over an original image. Appellants additionally assert
(brief, page 10) that the combination of Hama, Berry and
Waller fails to teach the automatic arranging of the enlarged
image display region and the enlargement target region based
on conditions such as the size of the enlarged image display
region, etc.
Hama discloses (col. 1, lines 62-67) that in the prior
art, "display of both a general enlargement indicator and a
detailed partial image is known, but has the disadvantage that
the operator cannot simultaneously view the entire image.
This requires alternatively viewing the entire image and
selected portions of that image." To solve this problem, Hama
discloses
display of both the full original image 22 on part of the
screen
6, including the general enlargement indicator cursor 25
having cross-hairs 26, as well as an enlargement (enlarged
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007