Appeal No. 1996-3078
Application 08/184,417
determine a physical format type for a file from plural available physical format types in response to a
user designation of a file type.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 21, we note that Rosen also fails to teach or suggest
the feature missing from the admitted prior art of providing a user interface which allows a user to
designate a file type along with means responsive to such designation for determining a physical format
type for the file from amongst plural available physical format types. Accordingly, we are in agreement
with appellants (see Reply Brief, page 2) that claims 8 and 21 are nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the admitted prior art in view of Rosen.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed. In addition, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is also reversed.
We note that our decision does not in any way preclude the examiner from presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness of these claims under 35 U.S.C § 103 using the same admitted prior art, the
prior art of record, or additional prior art. In fact, in our view, the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1 to 29 does not only raise the question of whether it would have been obvious to store
video and textual data in respective spiral and concentric tracks on a single disk, but also, whether it
would have been obvious to provide a means for determining a physical file format type with the system
and method set forth in the admitted prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007