Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
well known in the art as evidenced by Yamagishi. The Examiner concludes
"that it would have been an obvious choice of design to have replaced the
missing separated sync signals in Arai et al. using the technique which was
disclosed in Yamagishi in place of the 'countdown' method used in Arai et al.
(the modification representing noting [sic, nothing] more than the substitution
of one known alternative for another)" (Answer at 21).
Appellant's Reply Brief mostly repeats the arguments in the Appeal
Brief. One new argument is that since Arai is only concerned with a missing
horizontal synchronizing signal omitted in a period in which the vertical
synchronizing signal VD2 is present, Arai teaches away from the claimed
invention (Reply Brief at 21). Another new argument is that if no input was
received from the signal terminals, one of ordinary skill in the art "would
have considered that the computer was not providing a video signal to the
display monitor and thus there would be no reason to believe there is a need
to generate[] reference vertical and horizontal sync signals" (id. at 23), which
apparently refers back to the following argument made with respect to
claim 58 (id. at 15-16):
One of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have understood that if
both the horizontal and vertical signals are not detected at the input 1,
then it is unlikely that the computer is supplying a video signal to the
display.
In such a case there would not appear to be any need to generate
both a reference horizontal synchronous signal and reference vertical
synchronous signal. If both horizontal and vertical sync signals are not
input from the computer, generation of both a reference horizontal
- 31 -
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013