Appeal No. 1997-2151
Application No. 08/221,959
disagree with appellant. Appellant argues that Tanabe does not use clock signals to
properly time the signal generator, but cites to no specific claim language in claims 28 or
35. (See brief at page 3.) We disagree with appellant. Claim 28 merely requires that the
blanking “start a predetermined amount of time before the leading edge of the video sync
signal” and “ends a second predetermined time after a trailing edge of the video sync
signal.” We agree with the examiner that appellant is arguing limitations not expressly
2
found in the language of claim 28 .
Appellant argues that Tanabe does not take into account the “front and back porch”
which includes color burst information. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with the examiner
that this limitation is not found in the language of claims 28 or 35 and is therefore not
persuasive. Appellant has not set forth any specific language in claims 28 or 35 which
distinguishes the claimed invention from Tanabe. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 28 and 35 and their dependent claims.
We note that an after-final amendment, filed Feb. 26, 1996, proposing to modify the language of2
the independent claims was not entered in an advisory action mailed Mar. 6, 1996. We have not
considered the language in these claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007