Appeal No. 97-1398
Application 08/295,225
playing video signals. It does not render the tape capable of
playing clear video pictures, such as those recited in claim 12
. . . ." (Reply Brief at 3). This argument is unconvincing
because claim 3 does not require that the tape be capable of
playing back audio and video information with any particular
degree of clarity during cleaning. Instead, the claim is broad
enough to read on a tape which is capable of recording and
playing back audio and video information with a lower degree of
clarity during cleaning (e.g., during Fujimura's cleaning
portions 10) and with a higher degree of clarity when not
cleaning (e.g., during Fujimura's check portions 11). We 7
therefore conclude that Fujimura's cleaning portions 10 satisfy
the "simultaneous cleaning and playing" limitation of claim 3.
We also agree with the examiner that Fujimura's check
portions 11 satisfy the "simultaneous cleaning and playing"
limitation, which appellants did not address in the reply brief.
Any doubt that this was how the examiner was relying on Fujimura
should have been dispelled by the following comment in examiner's
Supplemental Answer (at 2):
In the Practical Example section on page 3, lines 20-22 of
appellants' translation of Fujimura the following is
7As noted earlier, claim 3 does not require the actual
recording of audio/information to be played back during cleaning.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007