Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
signal processor ('443 patent, col. 3, ll. 54-58). Arai discloses that
element 206 is connected to the deflection circuit and coil elements 3-11 just
as Appellant's synchronous signal processor 5 is connected to deflection coil 7
in the "Background Art" of Figure 1. Appellant's suggestion that Arai
discloses a synchronous signal processor as element 201 fails to consider the
functions of the processor; the fact that the names sound similar is irrelevant.
Arai does not disclose that elements 3-11 (which the Examiner finds to
correspond to the synchronous signal processor) or element 206 (which we
find to be the synchronous signal processor) are connected to the video
system circuit 13, which corresponds to the claimed "video signal processor."
The Examiner reasons that it would have been conventional to provide the
video system circuit 13 with processed synchronous signals in the same
manner that video signal processor 2 is provided with signals from the
synchronous signal processor 5 in the "Background Art" of Figure 1 of the
'443 patent. Appellant challenges the finding that the connection would have
been conventional as based on supposition. "Assertions of technical facts in
areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some
reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent art . . . ." Ahlert,
424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. We cannot accept the Examiner's
obviousness reasoning without evidence. Since the Examiner concludes that
the "Background Art" of Figure 1 of the '443 patent is not prior art, the
Examiner can not rely on it as evidence of what was conventional. Arai does
not disclose that the processed synchronous signals are output to the video
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013