Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
ordinary skill in the art to use an external digital peripheral for storage and later
retrieval for archiving thereof. Therefore, we find that Nagasaki teaches and fairly
suggests the output of both an analog video output signal and a digital video output
signal to peripheral devices.
Appellants argue that the term “peripheral equipment” is clear and well defined.
Appellants have proffered the definition from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary that
refers to devices that are connected to a computer and are controlled by its
microprocessor. The IEEE Dictionary and the McGraw-Hill Dictionary tend to focus on
the fact that the unit is external to the basic unit and not part of the unit itself. All of
these definitions appear to be reasonable though slightly varied. Appellants argue that
the common denominator is that the equipment is nonessential to the basic unit, but
working together with the basic unit. (See brief at page 11.) We accept this definition
as a reasonable version of the ordinary definition.
With the above definition, appellants argue that Kikuchi does not disclose a
video signal processing device which is connectable to an electronic endoscope and
that feeds a serial electric digital video signal from a video signal processing device to a
piece of compatible external digital peripheral equipment as set forth in the independent
claims. (See brief at pages 12-13.) We agree with appellants.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007