Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
206 does not perform the functions of detecting synchronous signal outputs
and generating reference signals (id.). Appellant argues that Figure 3 of the
'443 patent illustrates a single-chip microcomputer and Figure 6 illustrates
some of the components of that chip (id. at 19).
Issue (1) analysis
We find that Arai discloses a "microcomputer connected to said
computer for detecting at least one synchronous signal output from said
computer to said display monitor," albeit not for the reasons stated by the
examiner. Nevertheless, Appellant is responsible for all teachings of Arai.
We observe that Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in interpreting Arai's
DAT 2 as a microcomputer, but does not actually argue that Arai lacks a
"microcomputer connected to said computer." The microcomputer in Arai
does not perform all of the claimed functions and these differences are
addressed in Issues (2) and (3).
First, we explain why we do not agree with the Examiner's reasoning.
Claim 58 recites that the microcomputer performs five functions. Figure 6 of
the '443 patent shows circuitry, which is described as performing these
functions under software control ('443 patent, col. 8, l. 59 to col. 11, l. 25),
where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microprocessor
which executes program instructions to control the circuitry is not illustrated
for reasons of clarity. We consider only the function of "detecting at least one
synchronous signal output from said computer to said display monitor." Arai
discloses that the control processing circuit 206 in DAT 2 is a microcomputer
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013