Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
or used by others in this country" (Response of Dec. 15, 2006) fails to
recognize that subject matter actually known to an inventor may be "prior art"
under §§ 102(f)/103 even though it is not published or known or used by
others in this country, and that it may constitute evidence of knowledge of
those of ordinary skill in the art. We have no confidence that the label of
"Background Art" indicates information which is not "Prior Art." Therefore,
we presume that the figures labeled "Background Art" are "Prior Art."
Appellant can overcome this presumption by an affidavit or declaration of the
inventor addressing the legal tests for "prior art" and evidence of knowledge
of the level of skill in the art; arguments of counsel will not be persuasive. In
particular, however, the question is whether outputting processed vertical and
horizontal synchronous signals from a synchronous signal processor to a
video signal processor, as shown in Figure 1 is "prior art" and the affidavit or
declaration should specifically address whether this feature is "prior art."
The rejection
The Graham findings regarding the scope and content of Arai and
Yamagishi, and the level of ordinary skill in the art are discussed in
connection with the Examiner's rejections of claims 58 and 26.
The presumed prior art of Figure 1 of the '443 patent discloses a
synchronous signal processor 5 which outputs processed vertical and
horizontal synchronous signals to a video signal processor 2 and to a
deflection coil 7 mounted to a CRT 6.
- 43 -
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013