Appeal No. 1998-1441
Application No. 08/294,779
3
subject matter of claim 30. The claim requires control of the second deflector means in
response to a reference signal. As set out on page 12 of the Answer, Winsor, in
combination with other teachings, is used for the requirement of showing of a second
deflector means which operates in response to a reference signal. As we have previously
determined, the teachings of Winsor do not suggest movement of a second deflector
means in an arrangement as disclosed by Tsukada. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claim 30.
The rejection (Answer, page 12) takes notice that it was known to synchronize
horizontal and vertical scanning using the same signal, but that does not speak to the
specific requirements of claim 31. The claim requires that an “image signal source
means” provides a horizontal synchronization signal as a reference signal, with the optical
scanning means synchronizing with the reference signal. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 31.
Appellants do not submit separate arguments for claims 32 and 33. Claim 33 is
similar in scope to claim 31, and we do not sustain the rejection of that claim for the
reasons noted above with respect to claim 31. Claim 32, however, recites a “first
detecting means” detecting a horizontal scanning cycle of the first deflector means and
3We note two obvious informalities in claim 30. The “second deflecting means” should be
amended to second --deflector-- means. The “first deflecting means” should be amended to first --deflector--
means.
-13-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007