Appeal 2006-3341
Application 10/266,491
including interlaced digital video such as high definition television
(HDTV).” The MPEG2 designation is used consistently throughout the
teachings of Van Der Meer. We thus find that the official notice of the
examiner is supported by his evidence of the prior art.
The Appellants point out that the receiver circuit of Van Der Meer
does not explicitly present a digital tuner, as claimed3. Van Der Meer
indicates in relevant part that “The transmitter receives a baseband video
signal in YUV format and an associated audio signal AUD and comprises a
MPEG2 video encoder 101 and MPEG2 audio encoder 102 for encoding
said video and audio signal into packetized elementary streams PSV and
PSA, respectively.” (Column 9, line 25-30). In Van Der Meer column 1,
line 20 it states, “Meanwhile the MPEG2 … digital television standard will
be applied worldwide for the broadcast of digital television program to the
end-user by satellite, cable, terrestrial networks and by packaged media such
as tape or disc.” Examiner, in his rejection of May 19, 2004, indicates “In
any event, the examiner takes Official Notice that using digital tuner for
receiving television signals and HDTV monitor for displaying television
signals is well known in that art for their high signal quality output
characteristics.” As Van Der Meer is clearly considering the input to be
potentially from “broadcast of digital television program to the end-user by
satellite, cable, terrestrial networks” as quoted from his column 1, it is not
erroneous for the Examiner to take the official notice of a digital tuner.
3 Claim 22 reads in relevant part: “… receiving at least one TV signal at a
receiver circuit including a digital tuner;”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013