Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
Rejection and arguments
The Examiner found that Yamagishi teaches that it was known to
switch to internally generated sync signals when no external sync signals
were being received (Final Rejection at 6). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Arai to switch to internally generated
horizontal and vertical sync signals when the sync signals are not detected for
the advantages cited by Yamagishi, i.e., it would have ensured that the later
circuitry stages would continue to operate properly (id.).
Appellant argues that Arai fails to teach a "microcomputer generating
reference vertical and horizontal synchronous signals when no input is
received from said vertical synchronous signal terminal, said
horizontal/composite synchronous terminal and said synchronous-on-green
terminal of said computer" (Brief at 12). It is argued that Arai is concerned
with a missing horizontal synchronizing signal omitted in a period in which
the vertical synchronizing signal VD2 is present, not with a missing vertical
synchronizing signal (id. at 12 and 13). It is argued that nothing in Yamagishi
motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to detect a missing vertical
synchronizing signal in Arai and to provide extra sync detection in Arai (id.
at 13). It is argued that the Examiner has used hindsight to suggest checking
for when no sync input is received, but one of ordinary skill in the art would
have looked only to what the applied art would have fairly suggested (id.).
The Examiner's Answer repeats the reasoning from the Advisory
Action that generating "reference" sync signals for missing sync signals was
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013