Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
recorded in adjacent areas of the tape (col. 5, lines 34-36).
The examiner contends that claim 29 is anticipated by this
duplication of program blocks, reading the claimed "packet[]2
. . . consisting of n identical control data bit groups" on
the identical program data in each of the program blocks P ,
n
P ', and P ". In responding to the rejection, appellant3
n n
addresses not only this program block duplication but also the
program code duplication depicted by Figures 5 and 6, wherein
the same 128-byte program code is recorded in three adjacent
tracks or fields. We will address this matter first.
Appellant argues that the three tracks cannot be considered to
be a "packet[] . . . consisting of n identical control data
bit groups" (our emphasis), as recited in claim 27, because
"these three tracks consist of three identical bit groups plus
three non-identical identifier codes [00, 01, and 02]" (Brief
at 6-7). This argument is unconvincing because it incorrectly
2January 11, 1994, Office action (paper No. 9), at 5),
incorporated by reference into final Office action at 2.
3Although not stated in the § 102(b) rejection in the
final Office action or the Answer, the examiner also appears
to be reading the claimed "main data" onto the video source
data, a point which appellant does not dispute.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007