Appeal No. 1998-0156
Application 08/385,511
said auxiliary signal recording parts.” In meeting said limitation, the Examiner asserts, Answer,
pages 11-12, that he “considers [in Yoshimura]
A-1, A-2 as the audio signal, V as the video signal, A-1 as marking the audio sector in which a
portion of the audio signal is recorded, V, A-2 as the video block, and A-2 as the auxiliary part,
in which a portion of the audio signal, A-2, is recorded. Video blocks or sectors can be
considered as containing the corresponding audio signal.” We note that in Figure 14 of
Yoshimura, the audio signals A-1 and A-2 are not the same signals. Rather, these are the
audio synchronizing blocks dispersed among the video synchronized blocks. Therefore, the
audio signal A-2 cannot be considered as meeting the claimed limitation of
“said digital audio signal is additionally stored in said auxiliary signal recording parts [of the
video signal].”
The other two independent claims, 1 and 5 contain corresponding limitations.
Therefore, for the same reasons as above, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 also does not meet
the claimed limitations. Consequently, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 14 by Yoshimura.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an
Examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is
met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007