Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
Hattori for such a teaching, we agree with appellant that
Hattori appears to be directed to prerecorded CDs which are
used only for playback and not to a mass storage memory on
which data may be recorded. Now, we might agree with the
examiner that the limitation is so broadly recited in the
claim that “recording” could include the information that was
originally prerecorded on the disk. However, previously in
the claim, it was recited that the storage capacity of the
mass storage memory means is “capable of handling concurrently
recording and access of both display and audio data.” This
would seem to strongly imply that the “recording” of claim 1
does not refer to prerecorded information but, rather, to data
which is recorded on the mass storage memory means when using
the claimed apparatus.
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Further, since claims 7, 8, 20 and
21 depend from claim 1 and we find that Washizuka does not
provide for the deficiencies noted supra with regard to claim
1, we also will not sustain the rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007