Appeal No. 1999-0142
Application 08/542,330
an unintended manner. Viewing the Examiner's rejection in the light
most favorable to the Examiner, we presume this is the Examiner's
position. Otherwise, the Examiner has failed to show even one
element of the claimed subject matter.
We conclude the Examiner erred.
First, the claims all recite an "image signal" and neither
Strobel nor Seely produces an "image signal." Claim 29 recites an
"original image signal" and claims 35 and 38 recite an "image
signal," As noted by Appellants (RBr2), a "signal" is defined as "a
detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage, current,
magnetic field strength) by which messages or information can be
transmitted." An "image" per se, as viewed through a viewfinder or
captured on film, as in Strobel and Seely, is not considered an
"image signal" because it is not in a physical form that can be
transmitted or manipulated. The Examiner finds (EA4) that Strobel
produces an original image signal, referring to the camera and
column 4, lines 10-12. However, the image produced on film in the
camera is not considered an image signal, and column 4, lines 10-12,
only refers to the image in the viewfinder which is not considered an
image signal. Thus, we agree with Appellants' arguments (Br8-9;
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007