Appeal No. 1999-2039 Page 9
Application No. 08/531,424
106, 107, 108,” col. 12, l. 61, in the arrangement taught by
Pileski. The examiner’s stated reasons, viz., “for the same
lighting purposes,” (Examiner’s Answer at 5), and “for the
same well known purposes as claimed,” (id.), do not address,
let alone persuade us of, the desirability of his proposed
rearrangement.
Relying on Nagasaki to “teach[] wireless transmitter
means (12, 13 of Figure 1) for transmitting video data from
video sensor means 4 of Figure 1 to a remote receiver,“
(Examiner's Answer at 7); Uehara to “disclose[] an electronic
endoscopic apparatus as shown in Figure 2, and teach[] the
conventional use of generation of chrominance and luminance
color video signals (see 46-48 of Figure 2) from light
reflected from objects;” (id. at 8); and Moore “disclose[] a
color endoscope with charged coupled device and television
viewing as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 5, and substantially the
same endoscopic video camera system as claimed in claims 12
and 13,” (id. at 9-10); the examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, that the additional references cure the
aforementioned deficiency. Because Kakinuma’s light emitting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007