Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
the microcomputer performs synchronization detection in step 1004 and
polarity unification in steps 1006 and 1007.
Differences
In the analysis, we find that Arai teaches "a microcomputer connected
to said computer for detecting at least one synchronous signal output from
said computer to said display monitor," so the differences between the subject
matter of claim 58 and Arai are that Arai does not disclose: (1) "said
microcomputer generating . . . reference . . . vertical synchronous signals
when at least one synchronous signal is not detected from said computer";
(2) "said microcomputer providing . . . said . . . reference . . . vertical
synchronous signals to said synchronous signal processor"; and (3) a
"synchronous signal processor outputting processed vertical and horizontal
synchronous signals to said video signal processor."
Level of ordinary skill in the art
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has no way to take
testimony about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Guessing at the level of
education and experience possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art is
meaningless because it says nothing about what the hypothetical person of
ordinary skill in the art actually knows. If an express finding is required, the
level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See
In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO
usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior art and the level
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013