Appeal No. 1996-1253
Application 08/113,034
recorded on a tape. However, tape recorders [as in the Orimoto reference] and video cassette
recorders [as in appellant’s preferred embodiment and in claim 1 on appeal] are commonly
known to enable both reproducing and recording operations. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention [of claims 1 to 5] was made to increase
the playing time of Orimoto in accordance with a recording mode of the tape deck. The
rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
been motivated to increase the playing time of Orimoto in accordance with a recording mode of
the tape deck so that the playing time is updated to accurately reflect how much tape is used.
(Answer, page 9).
Thus, we cannot agree with appellant (Brief, pages 19 to 24) that the incrementing step as broadly set
forth in claims 1 to 5 on appeal would not have been obvious in view of the tape detecting method of
Orimoto. We find that it would have been obvious, and even common sense, to
increment playing or residual time in proportion to an increase in recording or reproducing time
since the recorded signal would be increasing in length and the user would want to be apprised of such
increase.
Rejection of Claims 6 to 23 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Turning next to the question of the obviousness of claims 6 to 23 under § 103, we are in
agreement with appellant that the examiner has failed to show a prima facie case of obviousness, and
that the combination of method steps recited in claims 6 to 23 is neither taught nor suggested by the
applied reference to Orimoto. We conclude that since Orimoto teaches a tape detecting method
wherein only a single operation, winding or rewinding, is performed in order to detect signal length, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007