Appeal No. 2002-0489
Application 08/831,731
Burrows. Thus, the rejection of claim 16 is reversed. The Brown
reference, applied to the rejection of claim 30, does not
overcome the deficiencies of Philips, Burrows, and Rogers. The
rejection of claim 30 is reversed.
Claims 44-52 and 58-63
The examiner states that "Claim 58 is substantially the same
as claim 44 and is rejected for the same reasoning" (FR35).
Appellant argues that claim 44 and claim 58 address
different subject matter altogether (Br18-19). It is argued that
the "timing envelope for a video signal" of claim 58 is not the
same thing as an "external burst gate signal" in claim 44 (Br19).
The examiner contends that claim 58 is a broader version of
claim 44, where the "timing envelope for a video signal" of
claim 58 is a broader version of the "external burst gate signal
. . . enveloping the color burst" in claim 44, and because both
the timing envelope and the burst gate signal are derived from
the horizontal sync output signal (EA12-13).
It would have been helpful if appellant had pointed out
where the "timing envelope" is described in the specification
since we do not find that terminology. Appellant argues that the
"timing envelope for a video signal" of claim 58 is not the same
thing as an "external burst gate signal . . . enveloping the
color burst" in claim 44, but does not explain why they are
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007