Ex Parte VOLTZ - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-0489                                                        
          Application 08/831,731                                                      

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention relates to a device having a programmable                
          horizontal sync pulse to simulate a burst gate signal.  A burst             
          gate signal is a signal that envelops the color burst signal of a           
          composite video signal.  The burst gate signal is provided to a             
          phase-locked-loop (PLL) device to set a window during which the             
          PLL device locks onto the 3.58 MHz frequency of the color burst.            
          The PLL device provides a continuous subcarrier reference                   
          frequency output to a comb filter decoder which separates the               
          luminance (Y) and chrominance (C) components of a composite video           
          signal.  Appellant states that prior art video decoder have used            
          internal burst gate signals (specification, p. 3).  The decoder             
          of the present invention provides an external simulated burst               
          gate signal which allows for color separation circuitry external            
          to the video decoder (specification, p. 4).                                 
               Claim 1 is reproduced below.2                                          
                    1.  An appliance using a composite video signal having            
               a color burst, the composite video signal including a                  


          2  The word "external" underlined in claim 1 was proposed to                
          be deleted by amendment after final rejection (attached to Paper            
          No. 21).  The amendment was denied entry by an Advisory Action              
          (Paper No. 22), stating that this presented a new limitation                
          requiring further consideration.  Nevertheless, since there is no           
          rejection based on the word "external," and since we consider the           
          word to be an obvious error which only makes the claim difficult            
          to address, we will consider claim 1 to be without the word                 
          "external" and recommend that the examiner allow entry of the               
          amendment deleting the term.                                                
                                        - 2 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007