Appeal No. 1999-1447
Application No. 08/446,316
single frame, which Newell suggests would be for
about 33 milliseconds. Assuming for the sake of
argument that one of ordinary skill would substitute
the Nakagawa data circuits 141-142 [Figure 19] for
the Newell switch 210 (sic), and also assuming that
one of ordinary skill would provide the Nakagawa
Gate Signal Generator at the output of the Newell
code recognition circuit 210 (sic), the result would
not be a squelch signal. The result would be a way
to divide every third element of a single signal
(being recovered from a disc) to either a video
refresh memory or an audio expansion circuit. For
the sake of argument, the circuit could be modified
to be more suitable to the intended function of the
switch 210(sic), and route an entire video frame to
the video refresh memory 212. Such a modification
might arguably produce a signal comparable to the
claimed first signal, which would indicate (to the
switch 210 (sic) the presence of audio data in a
combined video/audio signal being scanned from the
disc. However, such a combination would not produce
a signal comparable to the second squelch signal.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. Thus, the obviousness
rejections of claims 43 and 45 through 54 are reversed because
“neither Newell nor Newell in combination with Nakagawa
provides a basis for the section 103(a) rejections of the
appealed claims, . . .” (Brief, page 23).
Turning next to the double patenting rejection, the
examiner’s statement of the rejection (Examiner's Answer,
pages 3 through 5) is reproduced in toto as follows:
Claims 43 and 45-54 are rejected under the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007