Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
system circuit 13 and this does not appear to be an inherent characteristic of
the system. The Examiner's statement that the CRT 12 in Arai can be the
claimed "video signal processor" is without merit because, among other
things, the CRT does not perform any "processing."
We find that Arai does not disclose or suggest to one skilled in the art
the limitation of Issue (4).
Conclusion
We find Arai does not disclose or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
art the limitations of: (1) "said microcomputer generating . . . reference . . .
vertical synchronous signals when at least one synchronous signal is not
detected from said computer"; (2) "said microcomputer providing . . . said
separate horizontal and vertical synchronous signals to said synchronous
signal processor"; and (3) "said synchronous signal processor outputting
processed vertical and horizontal synchronous signals to said video signal
processor." The Examiner has failed to provide evidence of motivation for
making these modifications. The rejection of claim 58 is reversed.
Claim 57
Issue
Based on Appellant's contentions, the sole issue is whether Arai
discloses or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitation "if said at
least one input synchronous signal is not received, generating separate
reference . . . vertical synchronous signals."
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013