Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
1. A video display device comprising:
a display configured to display a primary image and a
picture-in-picture image (PIP) overlaying the primary image; and
a processor operatively coupled to the display and configured to
receive a first video data stream for the primary image, to receive a
second video data stream for the PlP, and to change a PIP display
characteristic in response to a received audio command and a related
gesture from a user.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Inagaki 5,999,214 Dec. 07, 1999
Pavlovic et al., ''Integration of Audio/Visual Information for Use in
Human-Computer Intelligent Interaction'', Image Processing, 1997
Proceedings IEEE, pages 121-124.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Inagaki
in view of Pavlovic
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham
v, John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007