Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 7
Application No. 09/002,927
6) that assuming arguendo that the information output by cameras
17 is image data, it is clearly not received by the vehicle
information receiver of a vehicle information display apparatus.
It is argued (id.) that because the image data output is
interpreted by several people and manually input into a computer
system as different data before it is transmitted to the receiver
V, that Liebesny actually teaches away from transmitting image
data to a vehicle information receiver. It is further argued
(id.) that the data received by receiver V is not image data
because it requires significant "reconstruction at the
proprietary receivers" before it can be displayed (col. 9, lines
38 and 39), whereas claim 1 requires that the image data be
displayed in the same form that it is received. Appellants
additionally argue (id.) that the displayed data must be in the
same form as it is received, e.g., "as is." Moreover, it is
further argued (brief, page 9) that “difference between the
claimed invention and the Liebesny-Furuya combination, is
significant at least in that the claimed invention provides the
opportunity for this system to transmit image data which shows a
traffic congestion problem and superimpose at the same time an
indication of the driver’s position so that the driver can easily
see a combined display of the driver’s position in relation to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007