Appeal No. 1999-0225
Application No. 08/563,188
We further find to be unfounded Appellants’ contention (Brief,
page 8) that the Examiner has improperly assigned multiple roles to
elements of Schnorf in order to meet the claimed limitations. As
set forth at page 11 of the Answer, it is the “TAPE” unit in
Schnorf’s digital processing area that corresponds to the claimed
digital data recorder and reproducer while it is the inputs in
Schnorf’s analog processing area that correspond to the “first
outside apparatus”. Similarly, in our view, a reasonable
interpretation of Schnorf’s disclosure would lead to the conclusion
that the connections to the various VCR’s and laser disc players
and recorders would alternatively correspond to the claimed second
and fourth outside apparatus.
Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention (Brief, page 8),
our review of the applied prior art indicates a direct connection
between the system elements and the data transfer bus 21 in Schnorf
as well as with the system elements and the video control unit 12
in Lang, at least in the manner broadly claimed by Appellants. Any
argument by Appellants that Schnorf and Lang lack such a direct
connection is unpersuasive since, to the extent that any
intervening elements exist between the data transfer structure and
the recorders and input/output circuitry in Schnorf and Lang,
intervening elements are also present between the data transfer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007