Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
disclosure of a single dual display type monitor such as
illustrated in Kikuchi’s Figure 6. To the extent that this
argument suggests that the appealed independent claims 43 and 44
require anything more than a single display unit, we reject such
argument as unfounded. While claim 43 sets forth first and second
image output units for outputting first and second synthetic
images, this is not the same as requiring first and second display
units. For example, Karasawa discloses first and second image
output units (parent scope processor 5a and child scope processor
5b) which output synthetic images on the shared display monitor 6.
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ contention
(Brief, page 12) that the combination of Karasawa and Kikuchi would
not result in a system which displays both raw and transformed
images. In our view, Kikuchi provides a clear disclosure of the
display of both raw and transformed images (Figures 4A and 4B) with
an allocation of the different images to the main screen and sub-
screen display areas of monitor 18 as desired (Kikuchi, column 6,
lines 8-21).
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 42 and note that, while we found Appellants’
arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6-16, 24, 25, 27-37, 41, 43,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007