Appeal No. 96-0809
Application 08/197,677
other words, the examiner cannot simply assert that the
content of the information is entitled to no patentable
weight. The examiner must address the information content
recited in a claim in the same manner as any other limitation
of a claim is considered for prior art purposes. Since the
examiner has not considered the information content for
the rejection under section 102 and has not demonstrated
evidence of obviousness as required under section 103, we do
not sustain this rejection of claims 1-5 and 15.
4. The rejection of claims 2, 5/2, 9
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ando in view of
Maruta.
These are dependent claims which recite that recording
information includes video information and audio information.
The examiner cites Maruta as teaching that it was well-known
in the art to multiplex video and audio data on optical discs
[answer, pages 4-5 and 8-9]. Since Maruta does not overcome
the deficiencies of Ando noted above, and since these claims
all depend from and incorporate the limitations of claims 1, 6
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007