Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
Hattori 62-279585 Apr. 12, 1987
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 17 through 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Dunn and Hattori with regard to claims 1 and 19, adding
Washizuka with regard to claims 7, 8, 17 and 20 through 23.
With regard to claim 3, the examiner cites Dunn and Hattori
together with Krenz. Finally, the examiner cites Krenz in
view of Thom and Hattori with regard to claim 18.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Dunn and Hattori, we will not
sustain this rejection because we agree with appellant that
there would have been no reason to combine the teachings of
these references.
The examiner contends that Dunn teaches the claimed
invention but for the “means for synchronizing the
reproduction of said data for display and audio output” so
that the information is displayed concurrently with the audio
reproduction of information directly associated with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007