Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
vertical synchronizing signals if there is no video signal, is not persuasive.
While we agree with Appellant that one skilled in the art would have
understood Arai's failure to detect horizontal and vertical sync signals makes
it unlikely that the computer is supplying a video signal, that supports rather
than undercuts the case for obviousness. The recognition that there is a
chance that the computer might be providing a video signal even in the
absence of detected horizontal and vertical sync signals would have provided
ample motivation, in light of Yamagishi, to modify Arai so as to generate
reference horizontal and vertical sync signals in the absence of detected
horizontal and vertical sync signals. The '443 patent itself does not explain
why reference synchronous signals are generated if no synchronous signals
are detected at any of the inputs. In addition, Yamagishi teaches supplying
reference synchronizing signals when the input synchronizing signals are
missing so that the next circuitry stages can continue to operate.
The fact that Arai is only concerned with a missing horizontal sync
signal omitted in a period in which the vertical synchronizing signal VD2 is
present does not teach away from the claimed invention, as argued.
A reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done.
See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Arai does not mention the problem of missing horizontal and vertical
synchronous signals and so does not suggest that generating replacement
signals will not work. The problem of missing horizontal and vertical
synchronous signals from the computer is a separate problem from the
- 34 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013