Ex parte PARK - Page 6

               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           


                              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                               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007