Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
Duvent 5,467,126 Nov. 14, 1995
(filed Oct. 21, 1985)
Fandrianto et al. (Fandrianto) 5,790,712 Aug. 4, 1998
(effectively filed Feb. 19, 1992)
Larson 5,821,987 Oct. 13, 1998
(effectively filed Jun. 23, 1992)
Claims 5, 9, 17, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fandrianto.
Claims 10, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fandrianto and Duvent.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fandrianto and Eppley.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Press and Larson.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 35) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 38) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
37) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Instant claim 5 requires, inter alia, means for determining the format of an
incoming video signal, in addition to separate video subsystems for converting received
video signals that are in different predetermined formats. The rejection (Answer at 2-3)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007