Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Beausoleil et al. (Beausoleil) 3,740,723 June 19, 1973
Slade 4,863,384 Sept. 5, 1989
Nomura et al. (Nomura) 5,097,349 Mar. 17, 1992
Ardis et al. (Ardis) 5,172,281 Dec. 15, 1992
Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ardis in view of Nomura.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ardis in view of Nomura and Beausoleil.
Claims 6, 7 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ardis in view of Slade.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ardis in view of Slade and Beausoleil.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the2
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12 is reversed.
Ardis discloses a video transcript retriever that includes a
video cassette recorder/player for videotaping a deposition, a
video timecode generator/reader, and a control computer with
software for controlling the timecode generator/reader and the
2As indicated in paper number 15, the reply brief was not
entered by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007