Appeal No. 1999-0081
Application No. 08/506,645
claim 5 and its respective dependent claims further relying in
part upon Engle and Corballis.
On the other hand, the examiner’s views expressed at page
6 of the answer are consistent with the language expressed in
independent claim 1 as we noted earlier. Appellant’s position
on the other hand as to this rejection of independent claim 1
(as well as independent claim 5) is best expressed at page 8
of the
brief where appellant argues that the function of the
separately claimed switch is such as to enlarge or reduce the
“range” of the region of positions of the video signals.
Appellant relies on the teachings at page 12 of the
specification in support of this view. However, we note that
the claim does not specifically state that the claimed
“altering” enlarges or reduces the range of a region.
As to this rejection, appellant’s positions are more
developed at pages 2 through 4 of the reply brief where the
appellant again refers to page 12 of the specification as a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007