Appeal No. 1996-1253
Application 08/113,034
residual times wherein a residual time is increased in relation to concurrent recording or reproduction
operations. Claims 6 to 23 are much narrower in that they further call for a tape detecting method
wherein high speed winding and rewinding search modes of operation are employed. Because claims 1
to 5 are so broad as to encompass the method taught and/or fairly suggested by Orimoto, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 1 to 5 on appeal. Further, since
we conclude that Orimoto fails to teach
or suggest a tape detecting method employing high speed rewinding and winding search modes of
operation, we will reverse the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claims 6 to 23 on
appeal.
We agree with the examiner’s reasoning (Answer, pages 8 to 9) that the ordinarily skilled
artisan looking at Orimoto would have been motivated to increment measured length of a pre-recorded
area. In turn, we cannot agree with appellant’s argument that claims 1 to 5, requiring that residual time
be incremented corresponding to a recording/reproducing operation, would have been nonobvious
since Orimoto only measures a pre-recorded signal length, which length does not change. By way of
explanation, we repeat the examiner’s well thought out logic below:
The reason the [Orimoto] reference does not show the incrementing step as claimed by
[a]ppellant is due to the fact that the method is used to measure musical selections already
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007