Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 25
same monitor, and that the examiner has misinterpreted the claim
as permitting the live image and the graphical display to be on
different monitors. The examiner's position is that the claim
does not require that the live video image and the graphical
image have to be on the same monitor, and that, in any event,
Smart teaches display of camera images on the graphics display.
As stated by the court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) "[t]he name of the
game is the claim." We find that the claim recites that "the
live video image from said given one of said plurality of video
cameras is displayed in a window on said monitor of said display
unit simultaneously displaying the graphical image." From the
language recited in the claim, we agree with appellant that the
examiner has misinterpreted the claim. In addition, we find that
Smart (page 3) discloses that:
Each workstation contains six black-and-white
television monitors for video assessment and
surveillance. The two larger monitors are normally
reserved for alarm-related video. An operator
may display any of several hundred camera images
on any of the monitors by selecting the appropriate
camera icon on the graphics display.
From this disclosure of Smart, we find that the language "on any
of the monitors" refers to the six video monitors. We find no
teaching in Smart of putting the black-and-white live video on
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007