Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
microcomputer (col. 9, ll. 6-8). As shown in Figure 10, the microcomputer
performs synchronization detection in step 1004 and polarity unification in
steps 1006 and 1007. Thus, it can be seen that the "Background Art" in
Figure 1 of the '443 patent corresponds to Arai's Figure 2 wherein detection
and separation of vertical and horizontal synchronizing signals is performed
by specialized hardware and output to a microcomputer, and Figure 3 in the
'443 patent corresponds to Arai's Figures 9 and 10 wherein detection,
separation, and polarity adjustment of the synchronizing signals are
performed by a microcomputer.
As to Appellant's argument that the microcomputer circuitry is
contained on a single chip, we agree with the Examiner that this is not
claimed and that the definition of microcomputer does not require a
single-chip device. We further agree with the Examiner that the '443 patent,
unlike Arai, does not disclose or suggest that the microcomputer is a
single-chip device. The circuitry of Figure 6 of the '443 patent can be part of
a microcomputer without it being on the same chip as the microprocessor
which controls the microcomputer. We further question whether the
specialized hardware circuitry in Figure 6 would logically be put on the same
chip as the microprocessor that executes program instructions.
We find that Arai expressly discloses the limitation of Issue 1.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013