Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450
The examiner contends that claim 1 requires no routing of any
signals from the output of 118 to the input of 118. Rather, it is
urged, that claim 1 only requires that the outputs and inputs are
connected. The examiner is of the opinion that the outputs 118 of
figure 5 of Esch meet the claim limitation because they are
connected to the outputs of 111. This “physical” connection is
said to be sufficient to meet the claim limitations (Examiner’s
Answer, page 4, lines 8-17).
We disagree. Claim 1 requires a controllable switching
device both upstream and downstream of the signal processing
device (i.e., having outputs connected to the inputs of the
picture signal processing devices, and having inputs connected to
the output of the picture signal processing device), in order that
they may be accommodated as independent units. This requires the
ability to switch from sources and to use output signals from
processing devices as potential input sources.
The examiner’s interpretation, that simply because one can
trace the circuit back from the outputs to the inputs means that
they are “connected” fails to give the claim terms their ordinary
meanings. Where the claim recites connected to an input or an
output, their ordinary meaning is a direct connection enabling the
function recited within the claim body.
Apparently, according to the examiner (Answer at 4, lines 9-
12), in Esch the outputs of the matrix switch 118 is connected to
the inputs of various processors 111-117 because there is a
physical connection between the output of each processor and the
output of the matrix switch 118. That view erroneously treats the
output of processors 111-117 the same as the input of those
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007