Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
After careful review of the Fincher reference in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
arguments as stated in the Briefs. At the most fundamental
level, as pointed out by Appellants (Brief, page 23), there is
no disclosure in Fincher of recording or reproducing audio or
video signals, limitations which are clearly present in claim
1. On this basis alone, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1 cannot be sustained.
Several other deficiencies are also apparent from our
review of Fincher. To the extent that Fincher records
absolute track addresses at all, they are recorded in a single
longitudinal track rather than “in each of at least some of a
plurality of tracks” as claimed. Further, although the
Examiner has suggested that column 15, lines 32-42 of Fincher
suggests the inhibiting of recording before a certain address
portion of a tape, there is no disclosure of such inhibition
being related to a predetermined absolute track address as
claimed.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that,
since all of the claim limitations are not present in the
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007