Appeal No. 2000-2067
Application No. 08/859,278
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 23 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
First we will address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7
through 12 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Cohen-Skalli, Kawamata and Hirota. We note that Claim 1 is the
independent claim with claims 2, 4 and 7 through 12 dependent on
claim 1.
Appellants argue that “Cohen-Skalli’s processing unit 13 is
not an image processing unit in the sense that it does not
perform image processing functions.” See page 2, lines 26-27 of
the Brief. Appellants then argue that “[t]he Cohen-Skalli’s
processing unit 13 performs other functions than controlling the
signal flow of the image signal.” See page 2, lines 29 to page
3, line 1 of the Brief. Appellants further argue that a separate
image processor is used in the system because “[t]he design and
cost of separate Image Processor and a main CPU are less than
combining all the functions in one single CPU.” See page 3,
lines 9-10 of the Brief.
For the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner states that,
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007