Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
OPINION
The Examiner, in the Request for Rehearing, submits that the Board erred in
finding there was no “multiple screen construction means,” as recited in claim 1, in the
Figure 3 embodiment of U.S. Patent No. 4,218,710 (Kashigi). The Examiner states that
the rejection relied upon the Figure 5 embodiment of Kashigi.
In our earlier opinion (at 9), we interpreted the “multiple-screen construction
means” of claim 1 as combining multiple full screens for simultaneous display, whereas
we found, based on the Figure 3 embodiment, that Kashigi only taught combining
partial or split screens together to make a single screen containing halves or quarters of
each of the two or four screens. However, the Examiner is correct that the rejection
relied on Figure 5.
We agree with the Examiner that Kashigi’s Figure 5 embodiment combines
multiple full screens for simultaneous display. Kashigi states at col. 9, ll. 15-20:
Referring more specifically to FIG. 5, let it be assumed that it is
wished to compress first through fourth pictures to be represented by the
respective ones of the first through the fourth input television signals 11,
12, 128, and 129 to a half on a linear scale and to combine the
compressed pictures into a composed picture.
The reference thus describes receiving four video signals through inputs 11, 12, 128,
129 (Fig. 5), and compressing each of the signals to one-half original size, yielding a
composed picture made up of compressed versions of the four original pictures. The
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007