Appeal No. 1999-1635
Application No. 08/892,443
the teachings of this reference is essential to the
proper operation of the system. The examiner’s
contentions (paper number 21, page 6) to the contrary
notwithstanding, Butterfield never established “the
independence of the NTSC encoding step in the
stereoscopic encoder.” Since none of the embodiments
disclosed in Butterfield teaches or suggests the
elimination of the NTSC encoding step, we agree with the
appellants’ argument (brief, page 14) that “[e]ach of the
embodiments illustrated in Butterfield for carrying out
his invention utilizes NTSC encoding.” “There is no need
to modify it other than to meet Appellants’ claims”
(brief, page 9).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection
of claims 17, 23 and 29 through 37 is reversed.
Turning to claims 3 through 5, we find that the
imaging system teachings of Choquet do not cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Butterfield. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 5 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007