Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). No evidence of secondary considerations
(also called objective evidence of nonobviousness) has been presented.
Scope and content of Arai
There is no dispute that Arai is within the scope of the prior art; i.e.,
that it is from analogous art. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442,
230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the reference must either be in the field
of the applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was concerned); Stratoflex, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535, 218 USPQ 871, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
("The scope of the prior art has been defined as that 'reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor was involved'.").
Arai discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 1) having a digital automatic
tracking (DAT) circuit 2 which outputs horizontal and vertical synchronizing
signals, HD1 and VD1, respectively, to deflection circuit elements 3-11 to
control the deflection of the cathode ray tube (CRT) 12 (col. 7, l. 60 to col. 8,
l. 36). A video signal is fed to the video signal input terminal 14, processed in
the video system circuit 13, and outputted to CRT 12 (col. 8, ll. 37-41).
DAT 2 contains a synchronizing signal processing circuit 201 (Figs. 2
and 3) which detects one of three peculiar forms of the synchronizing signals:
a composite synchronizing signal superimposed on a primary color signal G
(Sync on G); a form of composite synchronizing signal (C. Sync); and a form
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013