Appeal No. 96-0809
Application 08/197,677
that this editing information includes the command to jump to
another area of the recording medium. The editing information
of Miller appears to be information only, not commands as
required by claim 1. Although this may seem to be a minor
distinction, antici-pation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that
every feature of the claimed invention be present in a single
prior art reference. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 15 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Miller.
With respect to independent claims 6 and 10,
appellants make the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 1 as well as additional arguments that the
recording and repro-ducing means of claim 6 and the controller
means of claim 10 are not disclosed by Miller [brief, pages
21-25]. The examiner responds that the input means and
recording/reproducing means are inherent in Miller [answer,
page 6]. Although we agree that Miller inherently records and
reproduces data, Miller does not suggest recording or
reproducing a jump command in the editing information area of
an information block as recited in the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007