Appeal No. 97-1167 Page 9
Application No. 08/475,062
The examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 14 as obvious over
the combination of Admission in view of Ottesen and
Shimotashiro “as applied to claim[s] 3, 11, 13, and 15 above,”
(id. at 7), further in view of Tin. He begins the rejection
by admitting that the combination “does not disclose delaying
data with respect to a reference clock signal.” (Id.) The
examiner observes that Tin “provides a reference clock
generator 12 and a delay circuit 20. As depicted in Figure 4,
the time interval T corresponds to a delay between recording
an elementary information on tape by head 41 and reproducing
the same information by head 42.” (Id.) The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Tin with
Admission in view of Ottesen and Shimotashiro “to compensate
for the distance between the recording and reproducing heads,
as suggested by Tin on lines 16-17 of column 2.” (Id.)
Although the references omit “the -25 dB limitation,”
(id. at 6), which is recited in each of the claims, the
examiner notes that Ottesen teaches “that reference 28 may
vary depending on the changing environment.” (Id.) “Since
applicant has not disclosed that -25 dB is a critical range,”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007