Appeal No. 2002-0587 Page 7
Application No. 08/922,300
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
It is well known in the art that control grid 14 in
Martin’s CRT(cathode ray tube) is not the same as a
deflection yoke of a CRT. It is also well known that
the bias voltage applied to a control grid does not have
the same function as the horizontal and vertical
synchronizing signals applied to the deflection yoke.
It is further well known in the art that a H/V processor
constant voltage circuit . . . does not provide the bias
voltage applied to a control grid of a CRT.
Appellant further asserts (id.) that "Martin does not discuss a
H/V processor constant voltage circuit and thus does not address
the issue of gradually lowering an input voltage to a H/V
processor constant voltage circuit."
From our review of Martin, we find that Martin discloses
(col. 2, lines 64-72) that:
The control grid 14 is clamped to a negative DC bias
voltage -V1 from the power supply by a diode 44
connected between voltage -V1 and the control grid 14
and a capacitor 45 connected between the control grid
14 and ground. The output of the unblank driver 22
thereby controls the voltage between the control grid
14 and the cathode 13 by controlling the voltage of
cathode 13. This diode-capacitor network makes the
voltage at the control grid 14 drop slowly even though
its bias voltage -V1 is removed.
From this disclosure of Martin, we agree with appellant that
a control grid is not the same as a deflection yoke of a CRT, and
that the bias voltage applied to a control grid does not have the
same function as the horizontal and vertical synchronization
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007