Appeal No. 1998-0701
Application 08/263,744
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 10 and
12, we consider independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for this group. The examiner essentially finds that
Fukami teaches all the features of claim 1 except for the
recording and reproducing of video signals. The examiner
cites Minoda as teaching that it was conventional to record
both audio and video signals on the same magnetic tape. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to record video data on Fukami’s tape as taught by
Minoda [answer, page 4].
Appellant argues that Fukami relates to digital audio
recording and reproduction only. He also argues that the
status byte of Fukami, which indicates tape speed, does not
constitute a discrimination signal having a predetermined
frequency and a periodicity within the signal that is
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007