Appeal No. 2002-0489
Application 08/831,731
different. We wonder whether the "timing envelope" is meant to
refer to the synchronization key mentioned in the title of the
application and at page 4, lines 10-13, of the specification.
However, the word "envelope" implies an enclosing structure
(without stating what is enveloped) and the examiner's
interpretation of "timing envelope" in claim 58 as a different
wording for an "external burst gate signal . . . enveloping the
color burst" in claim 44 is reasonable. If appellant intended to
recite a synchronization key there is no reason why the
terminology of the specification could not have been used.
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection. In
addition, appellant has not shown that the programmable
horizontal sync output signal HS in the VIP decoder in Philips,
which is intended to be used in desktop video and other
applications (Philips, p. 3 under "APPLICATIONS"), is not a
"timing signal for a video signal" which can be applied to a
plurality of video devices. We are not persuaded of error in the
rejection. The rejection of claims 44-46, 48, 49, 58-60 is
sustained. The rejections of dependent claims 47, 50-52, and
61-63 have not been argued and, accordingly, the rejections of
these claims are sustained.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007