Appeal No. 1999-1892
Application No. 08/883,157
10, lines 59-62).” When the referenced portion of
Butterfield is read in context with the preceding paragraphs
in column 10, it is quite clear that the non-NTSC
applications mentioned by the examiner occur after the
encoder 4 has performed NTSC/matrixing functions. The
examiner’s contentions (paper number 21, page 3) to the
contrary notwithstanding, Butterfield never states that the
“stereoscopic encoder superimposes the images for 3-D image
construction, and then performs the NTSC coding.” Nothing
in Butterfield teaches or would have suggested that “[t]he
control computer would inherently enable one of skill in
[the] art to suspend NTSC coding in the stereoscopic encoder
(Butterfield: column 22, lines 48-60) for effecting the
production of a 3-D image for the non-NTSC imaging
applications (Butterfield: column 10, lines 59-62)” (paper
number 21, page 3). Since none of the embodiments disclosed
in Butterfield for combining colors in the manner set forth
in the claims on appeal separates out the combining function
from the NTSC encoder/matrixing function in encoder 4
(Figures 1, 2, 6A and 16), we agree with the appellants’
argument (brief, pages 7 and 9) that it would not have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007