Appeal No. 2001-0605
Application No. 08/811,827
television signal exceeds a threshold, Omoto, at best, detects
whether a noise component is above a threshold. In our view, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of independent
claim 1 and 5 would include an interpretation that a noise signal
component of a received signal is “a” received signal whose
strength is related to a threshold value as in Omoto. Further, in
contradistinction to Appellant’s arguments, the noise component
signal in Omoto is superposed on the video signal and displayed on
a television screen to provide an indication of received signal
quality. (Omoto, column 7, lines 29-42).
Despite the above misgivings with Appellant’s arguments, we do
find ourselves in agreement with Appellant’s further assertion
(Brief, page 4; Reply Brief, page 2) to the effect that, regardless
of any suggestion of a threshold value determination in Omoto,
there is no teaching of any relationship between such threshold
determination and the conditions under which a signal strength
visual indicator is displayed on a televison screen. In this
regard, our interpretation of the disclosure of Omoto coincides
with that of Appellant, i.e., while a thresholding operation is
performed on a received signal (noise component) in Omoto by use of
limiting amplifier to improve the linearity of a displayed signal
quality indicator, such thresholding operation has no impact on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007