Appeal No. 1999-1857
Application No. 08/579,156
HDTV and NTSC signal processing. Therefore, we find no such support for appellant’s
assertion that the term should be defined as appellant argues. Appellant argues that
the symbol timing lock signal can indicate when symbol timing is locked and can be
used to indicate the presence of HDTV signal in a received signal. (See reply brief at
page 2.) Again, appellant provides no express support in the language of claim 1 to
support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues
that the bit timing of Scarpa is not based on past values and cannot yield a symbol
timing lock signal. (See reply brief at page 2.) Again, appellant provides no express
support in the language of claim 1 to support this argument. Therefore, this argument
is not persuasive.
We note that appellant has drafted the limitation reciting the symbol timing recovery
as a means plus function limitation, but has not identified a corresponding structure in
the specification associated with the means. (See reply brief at page 3.) We assume
this is because the specification is basically disclosed in a functional level. Therefore,
appellant’s argument directed thereto is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the symbol timing lock signal does more than maintain a
desired sampling rate. (See reply brief at page 3.) Appellant argues that the symbol
timing lock signal analyzes past values of the timing error, or past values of the output
of the loop filter, to determine whether or not lock has been achieved. (See reply brief
at page 3.) We do not appreciate from appellant’s argument how the signal “analyzes”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007