Appeal No. 1998-0156
Application 08/385,511
At the outset, we note that Appellant has elected certain groupings on page 4 of the
brief, however, we will discuss the claims individually as they are argued in the body of the
brief.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the positions of the Examiner and Appellant and reach a conclusion
that the Examiner is overreaching in his effort to reject the claims on appeal. Whereas we
commend the Examiner in answering each and every point which Appellant raised in his briefs,
we are of the view that the Examiner is stretching his reasoning to meet the claimed limitations.
We add below some elaboration and clarification for the two grounds of rejection.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim when the reference discloses
every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We consider claim 10, the broadest independent claim. After our review of Appellant's
position, brief, pages 5-9 and the position of the Examiner, answer, pages 5-8, and 10-12, we
are of the view that the Examiner has not properly dealt with the limitation claimed in claim 10,
“each of said video signal recording sectors further having an auxiliary signal recording part for
storing an auxiliary signal, characterized in that said digital audio signal is additionally stored in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007