Appeal No. 1998-1469
Application No. 08/351,045
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that the following limitations of claim 1 are not met by
Ichijo:
digital signal processing means connected to said controller means, for
converting the first data received from said first memory means into converted data
conforming to a digital audio tape recorder format;
second memory means connected to said digital signal processing means, for
storing said converted data received from said digital signal processing means;
.... and
comparing unit means connected to said first buffer means, for comparing said
reproduction signal received from said first buffer means with said converted data
stored in said second memory means during said recording mode of said data recording
device to detect data errors recorded on the magnetic tape.
The examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 4) that Ichijo does not teach the recited
interconnection of the second memory means with the digital signal processor (DSP) means, i.e., that
Ichijo does not teach that the second memory means (9, 11) receives the converted data from the DSP
means prior to recording. The examiner takes the position (final rejection, page 4) that:
However, this distinction is interpreted merely as relocating the location of parts,
and it would have been obvious to have modified Ichijo et al. by moving the DSP
means prior to the second memory means because it has been held that mere location
of parts, without more, is within the skill of the ordinary artisan. See In re Japiske, 86,
USPQ 70 at 74.
Appellant responds by asserting (brief, pages 5-7) that the claimed invention does not merely
define a rearrangement of parts because in the present invention, the data comparison is performed
between sets of data that are encoded, whereas Ichijo, in contradistinction, compares
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007