Appeal 2007-0595
Application 09/822,855
1 Show Director controls the devices involved in the show, including the
2 components of the Giant Display Assembly, which includes a camera (FF15).
3 Further, it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that
4 the arrows in Trumbull’s Fig. 4 represent content flow, not control signal flow.
5 The control signal flow is shown in Fig. 3, in which signals go to the Giant Display
6 Assembly, which includes a camera.
7 The Appellants introduced a contention that the Examiner admitted that the
8 video and playback mixing station (Trumbull, Fig. 4:48) does not control the
9 camera (Reply Br. 2-3). The Appellants did not recite the Examiner’s explicit
10 admission, but we conclude on reading the Answer that this refers to the
11 Examiner’s explanation (Answer 9: ultimate Paragraph) that the user interface
12 provides the control, i.e., the user interface controls the video and playback mixing
13 station, which in turn controls the camera. The Examiner is merely ascribing the
14 location of ultimate control, i.e., the user interface. This argument is no more than
15 taking the Examiner’s explanation out of context, which, when placed back in the
16 proper context, shows that no such admission was made.
17 Thus, the Appellants have not shown reversible error on the part of the
18 Examiner in this rejection of claim 1.
19 The Appellants contend (Br. 8) that claims 2, 11, and 13 are allowable for the
20 same reasons as claim 1, whose rejection we sustained, supra. Accordingly we
21 sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
22 102(b) as anticipated by Trumbull.
23
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013