Appeal No. 1998-0701
Application 08/263,744
video signal.” The original disclosure describes the
invention as being useful in a conventional 8mm camcorder.
The examiner’s rejection is based on the position that the
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized
that an 8mm camcorder operated on audio and video signals
which were both analog.
Appellant’s argument that the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not an appropriate basis for asserting that
amendments to the claims are not supported by the original
disclosure is without merit. A rejection of claims which
supposedly contain new matter, or material which is
unsupported by the original disclosure, is a rejection based
on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Therefore, the examiner’s rejection is clearly made under the
proper statutory authority.
Notwithstanding appellant’s assertion that the
rejection is made under the wrong statutory basis, appellant
also makes the argument that the person skilled in this art
would have understood that conventional 8mm camcorders
recorded signals in analog form. Additionally, appellant
argues that the original disclosure is generic to analog and
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007