Ex Parte NAKATSU et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1999-2345                                                                                         
              Application No. 08/610,758                                                                                   

                                                    BACKGROUND                                                             
                     The invention is directed to a video printer having an operation system on the                        
              housing which can control functions of an attached video camera.  Representative                             
              claim 1 is reproduced below.                                                                                 
                     1.     A video printer for printing on a printing paper as a hard copy a video                        
                     picture selected from a plurality of video pictures recorded by a video camera as                     
                     continuous motion images, said printer comprising:                                                    
                            a video printer housing portion with a video camera attached thereto;                          
                            a signal input and output connection terminal disposed on said video                           
                     printer housing portion for electrically connecting said video camera attached to                     
                     said video printer housing portion to said video printer; and                                         
                            an operation system disposed on said video printer housing portion for                         
                     operating said video camera.                                                                          
                     The examiner relies on the following references:                                                      
              Itoh et al. (Itoh)                         4,935,763                    Jun. 19, 1990                        
              Finelli et al. (Finelli)            4,937,676                    Jun. 26, 1990                               
              Nagano                                     5,561,462                    Oct.  1, 1996                        
                                                                 (effectively filed May 24, 1990)                          
              Beveridge et al. (Beveridge)               5,621,492                    Apr. 15, 1997                        
                                                                               (filed Jan. 25, 1995)                       
                     Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                    
              unpatentable over Finelli and Beveridge.                                                                     
                     Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
              Finelli, Beveridge, and Itoh.                                                                                
                     Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
              Finelli, Beveridge, and Nagano.                                                                              
                                                            -2-                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007