Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
displayed information. The examiner then relies on Hattori
for synchronizing display information and audio information
and concludes that it would have been obvious to have provided
Hattori’s means for synchronizing the display and audio
reproduction to the device of Dunn.
The question which comes to our mind is: Why provide such
synchronization in Dunn when Dunn is not interested in any
audio information which relates to text or graphical
information which might be displayed on Dunn’s screen? There
is simply no suggestion to the artisan to modify Dunn’s
system, which displays text or graphics unrelated to any audio
information, in a manner so as to synchronize the textual or
graphic display therein with the reproduction of related audio
information. The examiner appears to have taken references
which teach bits and pieces of the claimed subject matter and
combined them through a hindsight reconstruction of
appellant’s invention rather than for any reason that would be
fairly suggested by the references themselves or by any common
knowledge of artisans.
Claim 1 also recites a “means for recording...in said
compact mass storage memory.” While the examiner relies on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007