Appeal No. 1999-1096
Application No. 08/556,746
segments of a program being recorded, with at least one segment
containing motion imagery.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that Takahashi
discloses displaying images as a way of identifying the contents
of a video program, but fails to disclose that the displayed
images are motion images. To remedy this deficiency, the
examiner turns to Mankovitz, stating that "Mankovitz discloses a
video apparatus including the capability of displaying guide
information having video clips comprising moving pictures as menu
data indicating the content of the video program." The examiner
continues that:
It would have been obvious . . . to modify the
Takahashi's video system wherein the displaying means
provided thereof . . . would incorporate the capability
of displaying motion images as menu for identifying the
contents of the video program in the same conventional
manner as shown by Mankovitz. The motivation being to
increase the quality of the displayed images by
providing a more comprehensive imagery to the user as
suggested by Mankovitz.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that Takahashi is limited
to storage of a single still picture subdivided into multiple
images. As support for their assertion, appellants point to
column 8, lines 17-23, of Takahashi wherein Takahashi indicates
that for a fixed image memory capacity, as the number of images
written into the image memory is increased, the picture quality
is degraded. This portion of the disclosure seems to suggest
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007