Appeal No. 1998-0498
Application No. 08/541,471
been an aid in light of Lacock's teachings, as generally
expressed and relied upon by the examiner at the top of column
5 of this reference, since the ultimate product of the
combined video and an audio codec units in Laycock is for
transmission down a single telephone line. Therefore, we
agree with the appellants basic view that it would not have
been obvious to the artisan to have utilized the Hosono-type
of interleaving audio and video data on plural, separate
channels of tape for recording purposes in the Tompkins-
Laycock combination for transmission between claimed nodes or
the claimed first and second computer devices. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of independent claims 3, 17 and 26 and
their respective dependent claims based upon the combination
relied upon by the examiner, Tompkins, Laycock and Hosono.
The additional reliance upon by Nakayama as to claim 26 does
not fill the deficiencies noted with respect to the
combination of Tompkins, Laycock and Hosono.
We have considered the subject matter of independent
claims 17 and 26 consistent with the subject matter set forth
in independent claim 3 for purposes of rendering a decision
regarding the rejections of the noted claims under 35 USC 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007