Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
Sugita is affirmed, as is the § 102(b) rejection of claims 30,
36, 44, and 47, the remaining claims in Group A.
We note that although claim 30 is also included in Group
B, the argument made there is not responsive to the § 102(b)
rejection of that claim. Claim 30, which was rejected under
§ 102(b) and 103, depends on claim 29 and further recites that
"said main data and said control data are stored according to
the same predetermined formatting and encoding rules." The
Answer (at 7-8) explains that this limitation was addressed in
the § 102(b) rejection of the independent claims, i.e., claims
29, 36, 44, and 47, which relied on Sugita as "teach[ing] . .
. main data and control data formatted and encoded according
to the same rules." This is an apparent reference to paper
No. 11, the Office action that immediately preceded and is
incorporated by reference into the final Office action and
states (at 3) that in Sugita "[t]he video data and the
computer programs are formatted in such a way that
reproduction of sequential data strings is possible without
loss of data." Appellant has not explained why Sugita's
recording of the program data and the video data as lines and
fields is insufficient to satisfy claim 30. Instead, in
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007