Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
storage device for retaining or archiving the image data. In our view, in the claimed and
disclosed imaging system, the storage of the data is not part of the basic unit or a
function of the device. Therefore, the mass storage device would have been an
external digital peripheral device.
Appellants argue that Nagasaki teaches away from external peripheral
equipment by being integral and internal to the Nagasaki camera. (See brief at page
14.) We find no express support for appellants’ conclusion. Appellants provide no
citation to Nagasaki to support the finding that the mass storage is required to be
integral and internal to the Nagasaki camera. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue that the recording modulator would not function absent the
[playback] assembly (26-29). Appellants argue that the assembly is essential to the
recording modulator. (See brief at page 15.) Appellants argue that under the
definitions provided in the brief, the assembly 26-29 cannot be considered an external
digital peripheral device. (See brief at page 15-16.) We disagree with appellants as
discussed above with respect to the VTR.
Appellants argue that the examiner fails to show motivation to combine the
teachings of Kikuchi and Nagasaki. (See brief at page 17-18.) Appellants further argue
that there is no motivation to combine the endoscope of Kikuchi and the camera of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007