Appeal No. 2002-2239
Application No. 08/876,450
processors.
To the extent the examiner regards anything connected to a
device's output as necessarily connected to the device's input
through the device itself, it is erroneous where, as here, the
connection is for the purpose of making it possible to provide
signals to the input of the device.
Similarly, for the purpose of providing a capability to
switch or direct signals, the output of matrix switch 118 cannot
be deemed connected to the output of processors 111-117 simply
because the output of processors 111-117 are applied as inputs to
the matrix switch 118. The examiner evidently has ignored the
requirement of "enabling free allocation of the picture signal-
processing devices to the at least one picture signal source and
to the outputs of the arrangement.
As a consequence, we determine that the examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation and
shall reverse this rejection.
However, we observe in passing that it appears to us the Esch
description may nonetheless still render the claimed subject
matter anticipated or obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) and 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The communications processor 103
is connected to a multitude of signal sources (see, e.g. Esch,
Fig. 5, and column 7, lines 45-50). The signal sources are
capable of being switched from one processor to another (Fig 5,
reference numeral 105 can feed either video processor 111 or 112).
The communications processor 103 controls the control processor
109, which in turn controls the downstream matrix switch processor
117 and matrix switch 118.
Thus, considering the communications processor, control
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007