Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
constructing multiple screens,” we agree. However, consistent with the instant
invention as disclosed and claimed, Kashigi’s compression of images is an operation
distinct from that of storing image data to one-frame memory 30.
We thus find none of appellant’s arguments to be persuasive.
We note that independent claim 1 is drawn to an image processing apparatus
and drafted in “means plus function” format, independent claim 2 is drawn to an image
processing method, and independent claim 3 is drawn to an image processing
apparatus. In the Brief (at 4) appellant submits that claims 1-23 stand or fall together,
and does not argue the limitations of any particular claim in the accompanying
arguments section. In our original decision we chose claim 1 as representative of the
invention. However, in neither the original Brief nor in Appellant’s Reply does appellant
argue that, with respect to claim 1, prior art structures are not equivalents of the
disclosed structures corresponding to claimed elements, in the sense of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, equivalents. Nor was our original decision, reversing the
rejection of claims 1-23, based on section 112, sixth paragraph, considerations.
Appellant instead relies on the argument that the function of storing image data in an
arrangement capable of constructing multiple screens is not disclosed or suggested by
the prior art. We therefore consider it unnecessary, more than four years after
appellant’s filing of the appeal in this case, to remand the application to the Examiner
for any sort of “equivalents” analysis. We interpret the unambiguous terms of the
claims as we find them.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007