Appeal No. 1997-3145 Page 14
Application No. 08/058,199
predetermined information of claim 31). However, as asserted
by appellants (brief, page 17) the combination of Hama, Berry,
and Waller does not teach or suggest the claimed "means for
providing priority to one of a plurality of selected
conditions . . . enlarged image display region." We find no
teaching of this limitation in the prior art applied by the
examiner, and the examiner has not pointed to any teaching in
the prior art that would suggest "means for providing priority
to one of a plurality of selected conditions . . . enlarged
image display region." Accordingly, we find that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 5-12, 14-20, 22-26, and 31-36. The rejection of claims
5-12, 14-20, 22-26, and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of dependent claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, where the examiner additionally relies upon
the teachings of Stadler. As Stadler does not make up for the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Hama, Berry, and
Waller, the rejection of claim 19 is therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 27-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, where the examiner additionally relies upon
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007