Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
found that it was well known to use video sync countdown circuitry to
generate replacement synchronizing signals when incoming sync signals were
missing and/or corrupted by noise, and concluded that it would have been
obvious to modify Arai to include vertical countdown circuitry to protect the
vertical signal from noise and/or corruption (Advisory Action at 7).
Appellant argues (Brief at 12) that Arai fails to teach "generating . . .
reference . . . vertical synchronous signals."
The Examiner repeats the reasoning from the Final Rejection that the
synchronizing signal detection circuit 302 performs the step of "determining
whether at least one input synchronous signal is received" and synchronous
separation circuit 301 performs the step of "generating separate reference
horizontal and vertical synchronous signals" if at least one input synchronous
signal is not received (Answer at 11). The Examiner also repeats the
reasoning from the Advisory Action that it would have been obvious to
modify Arai to include vertical countdown circuitry so as to protect the
vertical signal from noise and/or corruption (id. at 19-21).
Appellant replies that Arai does not teach generating reference vertical
synchronous signals (Reply Brief at 19). It is argued that claim 57 recites
"determining whether at least one input synchronous signal is received" and
"if said at least one input synchronous signal is not received, generating
separate reference horizontal and vertical synchronous signals," and Arai does
not generate a control signal based on a determination of a missing input
synchronous signal (id. at 20).
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013