Appeal No. 1999-1096
Application No. 08/556,746
pictures. Therefore, Henmi fails to add any teachings to the
primary combination of Takahashi and Mankovitz which would cure
the deficiencies thereof. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
For claim 22, the examiner adds Kano to Takahashi and
Mankovitz for a suggestion to include a means for printing the
stored pictures. However, Kano is directed to a printer, not to
a video indexing method, and, therefore, fails to cure the
deficiency of the primary combination. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 22.
As to claim 23, the examiner applies Yoshimura for a
suggestion to display the pictures in an array of windows.
However, as Yoshimura discloses extracting and displaying still
pictures similar to Takahashi, Yoshimura fails to provide the
missing motivation for substituting moving images for still
pictures. Therfore, Yoshimura fails to remedy the primary
combination, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 23.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, 10, 11,
16 through 18, 20 through 24, 35 through 41, 48, and 49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 35 through 41, 48, and
49 and reversed as to claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 16 through 18, and 20
through 24.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007