Appeal No. 1999-2345
Application No. 08/610,758
Beveridge uses a "frame grabber" for selecting still images, but the still images are
selected from a plurality of video pictures recorded by a video camera as continuous
motion images. Appellants, in turn, respond that "[i]n the claimed invention, the image
is selected from recorded images for the purpose of printing, not for viewing,
reconstructing the image, photographing and then printing as in Beveridge." (Reply
Brief at 4.)
Appellants do not point out where the alleged distinguishing feature may be
found in the claims. Instant claim 1 does not exclude additional operations of viewing,
reconstructing, and photographing prior to printing. Moreover, appellants' arguments
are not responsive to the combined teachings of the references. Beveridge is relied
upon for the suggestion of using a video camera, recording a plurality of video pictures
as continuous motion images, for the purpose of facilitating selection of images that are
to be printed on a hard-copy medium. We agree with the examiner's finding that
Beveridge suggests the limitation; see especially column 2, lines 17 through 30 of the
reference.
We also fail to see how the language of claim 1 might exclude use of a strobe,
contrary to implications in the arguments presented on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief.
Nor do appellants point out language in the claim that is thought to exclude using a
strobe -- even assuming that the combined teachings of Finelli and Beveridge require
the use of a strobe.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007