Appeal No. 1997-2941
Application 08/165,318
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br6).
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
The issue is whether the limitation of "a doubly written
parameter ... [which] is recorded in a digital audio data
recording area which is different from the digital audio data
recording area in which said parameter and said encoded data
are recorded" is anticipated by Kohut or rendered obvious by
the combination of Kohut and Fujiwara.
The teachings of Kohut and Fujiwara are fairly summarized
by Appellants (Br7-10).
35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The Examiner relies on Table 1 (col. 6) of Kohut (EA5):
"Each channel of 'A' includes a 'parameter' readable as the
16-bit digital audio data, and each channel of 'C' also
including the 16-bit digital audio data, same as channel 'A'
or as claimed 'a doubly written parameter.'" The Examiner
also states (EA8): "Given the broad language of the claims,
in particular, the fact that Appellant does not limit or
define the term 'parameter' in any way, this so-called claimed
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007