Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
The Examiner alternatively finds that the CRT 12 in Arai is a "video signal
processor" which is driven by the processed synchronous signals from
elements 3-11 (id. at 22).
Appellant replies that CRT 12 does not process video signals from a
computer synchronously with the processed vertical and horizontal
synchronous signals and is not a video signal processor (Reply Brief at 18).
Issue (4) analysis
The preamble of claim 58 recites: "A display monitor having a video
signal processor and a synchronous signal processor, said synchronous signal
processor outputting processed vertical and horizontal synchronous signals to
said video signal processor so that said video signal processor can process
video signals from a computer synchronously with the processed vertical and
horizontal synchronous signals, said display monitor comprising . . . ."
Because the display monitor includes both a video signal processor and a
synchronous signal processor, the structural relationship between the
synchronous signal processor and the video signal processor in the preamble
is a positive claim limitation rather than a mere statement of intended use.
Although the Examiner finds that elements 3-11 in Arai correspond to
the synchronous signal processor, we find that control processing circuit 206
in Arai is a better fit because 206 takes horizontal and vertical synchronous
signals from synchronizing signal processing circuit 201 and outputs data
indicating a display size (Arai, col. 9, ll. 17-20) and a display position (Arai,
col. 9, ll. 27-35) corresponding to the functions of Appellant's synchronous
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013