Appeal No. 1999-0142
Application 08/542,330
they do not perform the function of "synthesizing the bright line
. . . with the original image signal," as recited in claim 29, or
"synthesizing said bright line signal with said image signal," as
recited in claims 35 and 38. Strobel merely superimposes a reflected
image, either from surfaces 33 for a distant-subject frame or from
surface 27 for a near-subject frame, on the image in the viewfinder
to show the field of view of distant and near subjects. Neither
Strobel nor Seely discloses "synthesizing a bright line signal" (as
signal has been defined) with an "image signal." Thus, we agree with
Appellants' arguments (Br10-11; Br12; RBr3) that the Examiner erred
in finding that Strobel and Seely disclose "synthesizing a bright
line signal" (as signal has been defined) with an "image signal."
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Examiner
has failed to show any of the limitations of the three independent
claims. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 20-40 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007