Appeal No. 2002-0386
Application No. 08/553,281
two image data portions must be compressed and then transmitted/output. From our
review of Sakamoto, Sakamoto does not compress the input TV signal for the output.
We find that Sakamoto teaches that plural alphanumeric portions may be
superimposed in a compressed form on the display with the TV data in Figures 4 and
8, but we do not find that Sakamoto teaches or fairly suggests that the input signal is
compressed with the superimposed alphanumeric data. The examiner merely states
that “compression of an image is taught by Sakamoto and superimposing of video
image and computer image is suggested by Hansen. Thus the combination of these
two references reads on applicant’s [sic, applicants’] claimed invention.” We do not find
that this sweeping conclusion by the examiner addresses the claimed invention. Nor do
we find any discussion by the examiner where Sakamoto or any of the other prior art
references applied against the claims teaches or fairly suggests that the combination of
images is compressed after the superimposition and then the output of this combined
image. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and
their dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-15, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007