Appeal 2006-2328
Application 10/131,049
vertical and horizontal synchronous signals when such 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. This addresses differences (1) and (2).
The presumed art of Figure 1 of the '443 patent discloses that it was
known in the video art to output processed vertical and horizontal
synchronous signals from a synchronous signal processor to a video signal
processor. One of ordinary skill in the video art would have been motivated
to output the processed vertical and horizontal synchronous signals VD1 and
HD1 to the video system circuit 13 in Arai in view of the teaching of Figure 1
in the '443 patent. The motivation derives from the express teachings of
Figure 1 of the '443 patent because one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to do what had been done in the past.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 57 and 58 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 21, 26, 27 and 35 is sustained.
New grounds of rejection are entered as to claims 57 and 58.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
- 45 -
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013