Appeal No. 2001-2005
Application 08/893,024
information "indicating a phase-shift of a subcarrier of said
digital video signal."
The arguments presented by appellant in the brief and reply
brief do not argue against the combinability of Oguro and
Montgomery within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Moreover, we agree with the
examiner's understanding that Oguro teaches everything of
representative claim 10 on appeal except for the disputed feature
noted earlier. Based upon our study of the examiner's positions
with respect to Montgomery in the final rejection, the advisory
action and the answer, we conclude that there is no teaching or
suggestion of the disputed feature within this reference.
Based upon our study of each of the portions urged by the
examiner as teaching or suggesting the disputed feature, we
conclude that there is no such teaching or suggestion. The
discussion referenced by the examiner at column 5 (and we note
the bottom of column 8) of this reference does recognize a known
phase relationship between a data carrier with a color frame as
to the first embodiment of the transmitter in Figure 1 of this
reference. Yet, this feature alone does not come close to
indicating a phase-shift of a subcarrier in association with
color field information coded for digital video information.
The examiner's reference to the phase synch markers at column 10,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007