Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s argument anent no motivation to
combine the references since, as indicated supra, the skilled artisan had more than
sufficient motivation to make the combination.
Specifically with regard to claim 2, appellant argues that Inagaki merely shows
the detection of a voice of a speaking attendee and “highlights” the PIP of the speaking
attendee to distinguish that attendee from the other attendees. But, argues appellant,
highlighting is neither changing the position of the PIP nor the display size of the PIP, as
required by instant claim 2.
The examiner contends that the limitations of claim 2 are met because Figure 8a
of Inagaki “illustrates the concept of a relationship between who is speaking and the
position of which PIP to be highlighted which further changes when speaker changes
which is clearly illustrated in figure 8B so therefore it reads on this broad language”
(sic, answer-page 4).
We agree with appellant that a different speaker may be highlighted in Inagaki,
but the position and size of the speaker, i.e., the PIP display, appears to remain the
same. There is no indication in Inagaki that either the position or size, or both, of the
PIP display is changed.
However, Pavlovic does teach the movement of an object by a combination of
spoken command and hand gesture, so the display of an object does change position.
In making the combination of Inagaki with Pavlovic, for reasons enunciated supra, it
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007