Appeal No. 1999-2687
Application 08/174,353
Appellants’ second point in the request is that the
previous decision ignores the significance of the still image
claim language. Specifically, appellants argue that Wilson
cannot be used with still images and Hamada does not teach shake
correction at a later time [request, pages 4-5].
In the original brief, appellants simply argued that the
applied prior art did not teach a reproducing apparatus in which
a still image is reproduced from a developed film and corrected
based on shake information of the still image. They supported
this argument by noting that Hamada corrected for shake before
the film was developed and Wilson corrected the video signal
during the buffering function [brief, pages 29-30]. The examiner
clearly responded to this argument [answer, pages 24-25].
Although appellants filed a reply brief as noted above, they
never addressed the examiner’s response nor made any further
mention of the separate patentability based on a still image.
To the extent that this request asks that we change the
previous decision based on the fact that the claimed image is a
still image, we decline to do so. As noted in the previous
decision, we only considered those arguments actually made by
appellants in the brief. To the extent that appellants argued
the patentability of claims containing a recitation of still
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007