Appeal No. 2003-1411
Application No. 09/292,096
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claim 10, we
agree with the examiner’s conclusion (paper number 9, page 6)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to apply the display orientation teachings of Koninckx to
Ueda “so that the vertically ‘up’ direction of the image is
oriented at the top of the display regardless of the actual
orientation of the endoscope (col. 3, lines 53-55)” to thereby
“eliminate disorientation or error caused by looking at a non-
vertical image.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and
10 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through 4, 6, 7,
9 and 11 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claim 10, and is reversed as to
claim 5. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007