Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
Nagasaki. (See brief at page 18.) We disagree with appellants. From our review,
Nagasaki teaches at column 10 that its (video or still) camera can be used in an
endoscope. Therefore, we find a similar field of endeavor for the skilled artisan to look
for related teachings. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue the alternative combination of Kikuchi and Nagasaki at pages
19-24 of the brief. These arguments parallel the arguments addressed above which we
did not find persuasive.
Additionally, appellants argue that the examiner’s statement of the rejection is
internally inconsistent. (See reply brief at page 3.) We agree with appellants that the
statement of the rejection could be better, but the basic combination of the two
teachings and respective embodiments relied upon are clear in our view. With respect
to the statement of the prior art that addresses the last element of the claimed
invention, appellants argue that the examiner failed to assert what corresponds to this
limitation. (See reply brief at page 3.) We disagree with appellants and find that the
examiner directed attention to the assembly 26-29 as teaching an external digital
peripheral device. Additionally, we note that the portion of Nagasaki addressing the
teachings of the mass storage and its I/O teaches and suggests the use of external
digital peripheral devices as detailed above. The reply brief repeats arguments that the
individual teachings of the references are lacking and there is no motivation for the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007