Appeal No. 2002-0489
Application 08/831,731
rejection of claim 32 under § 103(a) has not been argued, the
rejection of claim 32 is sustained.
Claims 16-30, 40-43, and 53-57
The examiner finds that Philips teaches the limitations of
claim 16 except for "a) claimed counter circuitry for generating
and providing a simulated external burst gate; [and] b) claimed
counter circuitry externally coupled to the video decoder"
(FR19). The examiner finds that Burrows teaches that a
conventional way to determine a burst gate signal was to time an
interval from the leading or trailing edge of the horizontal sync
pulse, that it was well known to use counters to time an
interval, and, accordingly, it would have been obvious to use
counter circuitry for generating and providing a simulated burst
gate signal (FR20). The examiner further finds that Philips
teaches a clock generation circuit separate from the decoder and,
therefore, it would have been obvious to couple the counter
circuitry externally to the video decoder to "recognize the
benefit[s] of versatil[ity] and flexibility" (FR20).
Appellant argues that the counter circuitry internal to a
video decoder in Burrows is limited to use with video circuitry
internal to a video decoder and to use with a traditional burst
gate signal, whereas counter circuity external to a video decoder
can use the simulated burst gate signal for video circuitry
- 15 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007