Appeal No. 97-2582
Application 08/484,353
first embodiment, as is argued by the appellants, is not
particularly relevant. Even if the examiner’s view is
presumed to be correct, there is inadequate basis for the
examiner to conclude that switch 30 somehow activates the
reproduction functions of the recording/reproduction amplifier
22. It is simply unclear how one triggers reproduction of the
data recorded on the disk 23.
In any event, we disagree with the examiner that the
second disclosed embodiment necessarily includes all features
of the first disclosed embodiment. The examiner correctly
points out that in column 5, lines 16-21, Kinoshita states:
Some necessary circuits shown in detail in FIG. 1
[first embodiment] are not shown in FIG.4 [second
embodiment]. However, an image pickup section 1 has
the same arrangement and operation as those of the
first embodiment.
The above-quoted text must be read in context. In our view,
the discussion means only that to the extent any detailed
circuits from the first embodiment illustrated in Figure 1 is
needed to carry out the operations according to the second
embodiment, the illustrations are omitted in Figure 4. Here,
operation of the second disclosed embodiment does not require
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007