Appeal No. 1998-2572
Application 08/342,671
teachings of Urbanus and Wakeland.
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 based on
Urbanus and Wakeland. Since claims 2-11 depend from claim 1,
we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
We now consider the rejection of claim 1 based on the
teachings of Urbanus and Ishii. The examiner’s reliance on
Urbanus has been discussed above, and the examiner cites Ishii
for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect
to Wakeland. Appellants argue that Ishii suffers the exact
same deficiencies which were discussed above with respect to
the rejection based on Wakeland.
We agree with the position argued by appellants.
Ishii, like Wakeland, is concerned with the processing of two
different images to be superimposed within the same frame of
data, and not with the simultaneous processing of an image
from two different frames of data. Therefore, we do not
sustain this rejection of claim 1 for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the rejection based on Urbanus
and Wakeland.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007