Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
Analysis
The Examiner's reasoning from the Advisory Action that it would have
been obvious to modify Arai to include vertical countdown circuitry is not
persuasive because the Examiner has provided no evidence to support the
finding that generating replacement synchronizing signals was well known, as
discussed in connection with claim 58.
The Examiner interprets the step of "generating separate reference
horizontal and vertical synchronous signals" to read on selecting horizontal
and vertical synchronous signals from the Sync on G input when they are
missing from the VS or C. Sync/HS inputs. This interpretation is
unreasonable. We interpret "generating separate reference horizontal and
vertical synchronous signals" to require "generating" in the sense of creating a
replacement signal, not just selecting existing synchronous signals. See
In re Scroggie, 170 Fed. Appx. 132, 135 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (nonprecedential)
("The term 'generating page data' means that the page data is 'generated,' not
merely selected.'"). Moreover, there is no guarantee that there will be
synchronizing signals present at the Sync on G input when they are missing
from the VS or C. Sync/HS inputs, whereas "generated" signals will be. The
Examiner errs in finding that Arai teaches generating vertical reference
signals and providing such signals to a synchronous signal processor.
Accordingly, we find that Arai does not disclose or suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art the steps of "if said at least one input synchronous
signal is not received, generating separate reference . . . vertical synchronous
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013