Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
have been conventional and concludes, therefore, that it would have been
provided (Final Rejection at 5).
Appellant notes that the Examiner refers to elements 3-11 as the
"synchronous signal processor," but argues that "[b]esides the fact that Arai
clearly discloses a synchronous signal processor as element 201 of DAT 2 in
Fig. 2, claim 58 requires that the synchronous signal processor output
processed vertical and horizontal synchronous signals to a video signal
processor [as recited in the preamble]" (Brief at 10). It is argued that the
video system circuit 13 and CRT 12, which the Examiner finds to correspond
to a video signal processor, do not receive processed vertical and horizontal
synchronous signals from any of elements 3-11 (id.). It is argued that the
Examiner's statement that video system circuit 13 "would have had to been
provided with the processed video sync signal for controlling such things as
blanking" (Final Rejection at 5) is based on supposition and there is no
showing that elements 3-11 provide processed video sync signals to video
system circuit 13 (Brief at 11).
The Examiner maintains the following position (Answer at 11):
[O]ne would have understood the fact that the video processing
circuitry (13) of Arai et al is conventional in design and thus would
have had to have been provided with processed video sync signals for
controlling such things as video blanking; i.e. in the same manner that
the "synchronous signal processor" (5) of the current patent provides it
to [video signal processor] element (2) of the ['443] patent . . . .
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013