Appeal No. 2002-0489
Application 08/831,731
external burst gate signal is not claimed. Moreover, Fig. 10
appears inconsistent with claim 1 because the decoding is not
done in the video decoder, as claimed. The decoder is used only
as a burst gate generator.
In summary, we are not persuaded of error in the examiner's
rejection. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12-14, 35, and
36 is sustained. The rejections of dependent claims 4, 7, 9-11,
15, and 37-39 have not been argued and, accordingly, the
rejections of these claims are sustained.
Claim 2
Appellant argues (Br14) that Philips fails to disclose the
claimed "video circuitry external to the video decoder and
receiving the horizontal sync pulse programmed to simulate the
external burst gate signal." Appellant argues that the examiner
errs in stating that the decoder of Philips is "suitable" for any
video circuitry (Br14).
The examiner notes that Philips discloses, at page 3, that
the VIP decoder has applications in desktop video applications
which would require external video circuitry (EA10).
We agree with the examiner that the stated applications of
the integrated circuit video decoder (VIP) of Philips in desktop
video, multimedia, digital television, image processing, and
video phone (Philips, p. 3) teach that the integrated circuit VIP
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007