Appeal No. 2000-0979
Application 08/767,743
the claims from the specification, E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1988), claim limitations are always
properly interpreted in light of the specification and
prosecution history. See, e.g., Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal
Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Here, we look to the specification to interpret the functional
recitation of “inserting a scaling signal into the video
signal.”
Applicants’ specification states the following:
For inserting a scaling signal SKS into the video
signal according to the invention, either an analog
inserter circuit 7 is arranged in the analog signal
branch before the A/D converter 6, or a multiplexer 8 is
provided in the digital signal branch after the A/D
converter 6. Both the inserter circuit and the
multiplexer 8 may be controlled by a pulse shaper 9 in
such a way that the scaling signal SKS is written in a
test line of the video signal. The pulse shaper 9 counts
the horizontal frequency pulses of the video signal and
then controls either a pulse generator incorporated in
the inserter circuit 7 or pulse generator 11 which
applies the scaling signal SKS to the multiplexer 8, so
that, for example, in the 625 line standard, the video
signal is transmitted from the A/D converter 6 during 624
lines and the scaling signal SKS is transmitted from the
pulse generator 11 during one line. (Specification, 2-
3). (Emphasis added).
Thus, the scaling signal is inserted into the original
video signal when written in a test line of the video signal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007