Appeal No. 1999-1857
Application No. 08/579,156
Appellant presents argument directed to the specification and the disclosed aspects of
the signal, but appellant provides no support for this argument in the language of claim
1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the examiner mischaracterizes appellant’s arguments with
respect to the symbol timing lock signal and merely discusses it with respect to the bit
timing information as taught by Scarpa. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with
appellant. Appellant provides no support for the distinction between the lock signal and
any bit timing signals. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that neither reference teaches nor suggests detecting a HDTV
signal based upon the result of symbol timing recovery. (See brief at page 8.) We
disagree with appellant because Citta teaches that tuner 26 enables the respective
processor and that processor synthesizes the frequency of the HDTV or NTSC. (See
columns 2-3.) With respect to the use of symbol recovery as HDTV detection, the
presence of an output signal on the timing recovery of Scarpa would have been a
detection of the HDTV signal. The language of claim 1 does not qualify the use of the
signals. The presence of the signals would be sufficient to meet the language of claim
1. Therefore, it would have been readily apparent to skilled artisans that the presence
of a signal from the symbol timing recovery in combination with the synchronization
would have been a rationale for enabling the respective processing of the signals. (See
generally answer at pages 7-8.) Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007