Appeal No. 95-2855
Application 08/075,338
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner
are an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 5, it is
basically the examiner’s position that Ichinose teaches all the
claimed features except for the location of the memory holding
the reference time codes being outside of the video signal
reproducing apparatus [answer, page 5]. The examiner concludes
that this difference between the claimed invention and Ichinose
would have been obvious to the artisan within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the rejection fails to consider the
fact that Ichinose’s apparatus does not synchronize a time code
from a video tape recorder with that from an external reference
time code [brief, page 11]. The examiner responds that the time
code signals stored in RAM 58 of Ichinose are reference time code
signals. Ichinose compares the time codes of an incoming video
signal with time codes of video signals which have previously
been stored and displayed on Ichinose’s monitor 41. We agree
with appellant that there is no suggestion in Ichinose of
supplying a reference time code signal from outside of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007