Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Yamagishi's solution of
generating a replacement sync signal to any situation where the problem of
missing input sync signals may occur for the described advantage in
Yamagishi of allowing subsequent circuit stages to operate without halting.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Arai to provide for generating replacement reference vertical and horizontal
synchronous signals when reference vertical and horizontal synchronous
signals were detected as missing. Persons of ordinary skill in the video
circuitry art had sufficient skill to recognize that synchronizing signals can be
missing in Arai and would have been motivated apply the teachings of
Yamagishi to Arai to overcome the problem of missing sync signals.
Motivation is found in the teachings of Yamagishi and in the knowledge of
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 58
Figures 1 and 2A-2C are presumed to be admitted prior art
Appellant has amended Figures 1 and 2A-2C to label them
"Background Art" in the Request for Approval of Drawing Changes in the
reissue. The Examiner concludes that Figure 1 is not "prior art" because
Appellant identifies it as "background art" (e.g., Answer at 5, 14). Appellant
is silent about this statement in the Reply Brief. However, it is not clear to us
what is legally meant by "background art." At the oral argument, we asked
counsel for Appellant what was meant by "background art." As we
understand his answer, the subject matter of the figures is not prior art
- 37 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013