Appeal No. 2002-0489
Application 08/831,731
Initially, there is an issue of claim interpretation.
Claim 1 recites "a controller for programming the programmable
decoded horizontal sync pulse of the video decoder to simulate an
external burst gate signal for enveloping a color burst." We
interpret "for programming" to be a statement of intended use,
i.e., the controller must be structurally capable of programming
the sync pulse, rather than a positive limitation that the sync
pulse is actually programmed. Under this interpretation, the
"wherein" clauses merely further describe the burst gate signal
when programmed as intended. Statements of intended use are not
structural limitations that distinguish over the prior art where
the prior art is capable of that use. See In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Yanush,
477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Casey,
370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967). We think there
is no question that the horizontal sync pulse HS of Philips is
capable of being programmed "to simulate an external burst gate
signal for enveloping a color burst" no matter how appellant
defines the burst gate signal since the start and stop positions
of the HS signal in Philips are both programmable. It is also
noted that the "external burst gate signal" is a statement of
intended use for the horizontal sync pulse since no actual use of
the burst gate signal is recited. The programming of HS is not
like programming a computer to perform a new function--it is
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007