Appeal No. 95-4645
Application 07/678,441
the final rejection, the initial answer rejected only claims 10
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), which rejection remains. This
answer instituted a rejection of dependent claims 11 to 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The supplemental answer reduced this latter
rejection such that only claim 11 is included. Thus, only claims
10, 11 and 19 remain on appeal.
The pertinent portion of representative independent claim 10
on appeal is “means for modifying the reproduced image data and
the reproduced voice data in accordance with the executed control
program.” Corresponding language appears in independent claim 19
in slightly more specific form.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Kageyama et al. (Kageyama) 4,791,496 Dec. 13, 1988
Hirano et al. (Hirano) 4,845,571 Jul. 04, 1989
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Hirano and, because Kageyama does
not cure the defects of Hirano as applied in the rejection of
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, this latter rejection of
dependent claim 11 is also reversed.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007