Appeal No. 96-0809
Application 08/197,677
of claims 6-13 as anticipated by Miller.
2. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
5/1, 5/3, 5/4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Ando.
The examiner has indicated how he reads these claims
on the disclosure of Ando [answer, second page numbered 3].
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that the
examiner has improperly ignored the limitation of the “TOC
information” and that Ando does not disclose a jump command
stored with useful information as recited in claim 1 [brief,
pages 15-18]. The examiner responds that the TOC editing
information in Ando meets the claimed limitation [answer, page
7]. We agree with appellants that the TOC information of Ando
does not meet the recitation of claim 1 that each information
block has a recording information area as well as an editing
information area and at least one of the information blocks
has
a jump command as recited in the claim. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 15 as anticipated
by Ando.
With respect to independent claims 6 and 10,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007