Appeal No. 1997-1240
Application 07/881,753
On page 4 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that
the Examiner has never specifically identified which of the
various
signals disclosed by Katsumata he considers to correspond to
the
high definition television signal as recited in claims 1, 18,
20
and 22, and which of the various signals disclosed by
Katsumata he considers to correspond to the double rate signal
recited in claims 1, 18, 20 and 22. Appellants argue on pages
7 and 8 of the reply brief that it is readily apparent from
the Examiner's statements in the Examiner's answer that the
Examiner has not established that figure 11 of Katsumata shows
a circuit which applies to the signal output from the double
scanning speed
conversion circuit 1103 a scanning line conversion processing
to convert the signal output from the double scanning speed
conversion circuit 1103 into a signal having the same format
as that of the high definition MUSE signal as would be
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007