Appeal No. 1996-3287
Application 08/226,472
With respect to independent claims 1 and 4, the examiner indicates how he reads these claims
on the disclosure of Nomura [answer, pages 2-3]. Appellant argues that the examiner has not properly
identified the correspondence between the elements of the claims and the elements of Nomura [brief,
page 5]. Appellant also argues that the elements identified by the examiner do not perform the
functions recited for the claimed data skipping means, data skipping timing change means, and the
address formation means [id., page 7]. The examiner responds that the elements noted in the rejection
fully meet the claimed invention [answer, pages 3-4]. Based on the record before us, we agree with
appellant that the claimed invention is not fully met by the disclosure of Nomura.
There is no question that the disclosure of Nomura and the claimed invention are both related to
the problem of converting display signals for presentation on higher resolution video monitors. The
techniques disclosed by Nomura, however, are clearly different from the disclosed invention. In other
words, the lines of data added in Nomura using interpolation of values would not be the same as the
lines of data added in the claimed invention using the data skipping timing change means such as shown
in appellant’s Figures 5 and 6.
Although the examiner has nominally indicated that Nomura has a reference signal means, a data
skipping means, a data skipping timing means, and an address formation means, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007