Appeal No. 2004-1707
Application No. 09/127,688
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4 and
35 through 40.
The examiner states (Answer, page 3) that Egawa's video
clock signal is a synchronizing signal, as claimed. The examiner
continues (Answer, page 4) that Egawa's "video clock signal would
be the sampling signal" and IHSYN 10 in Figure 5 is the claimed
synchronizing signal. The examiner responds to appellants'
arguments (Answer, pages 12 and 13) by asserting that Egawa's
"video clock signal would be considered as a synchronizing
signal" and that the ISTB signal "would be a sampling signal."
Thus, the examiner has not made clear what he considers to be the
synchronizing signal and what he considers to be a sampling
signal in Egawa.
Egawa (column 6, lines 10-12) states that "reference mark
IVCLK1 is a first color video clock signal for requesting
transmission of print data for one dot." Additionally, Egawa
(column 6, lines 8-10) states that "reference mark IHSYN1 is a
first color horizontal synchronous signal for requesting
transmission of print data for one line." Thus, neither the
video clock signal nor the horizontal synchronous signal detects
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007