Ex parte PARK - Page 8

               Appeal No. 1998-1469                                                                                                
               Application No. 08/351,045                                                                                          

               comparison means, the transfer of digital data from the second order buffer memory (13) to the first                
               order block memory (10) is inhibited and the previous data in the unit block, i.e., g g  of                         
               first order block memory (10) is maintained in the  first order block memory (10) and will be                       
               rerecorded on the magnetic tape (col. 6, lines 36-42).                                                              
                       For the examiner’s rejection to be sustained, we would have to conclude that it would have                  
               been obvious to have  “relocated the parts” to provide the claimed interconnection between the second               
               memory means and the signal processing means so that the signal processing occurs prior to the data                 
               reaching buffers i.e., second memory means (9, 11); modified the comparator to compare coded data;                  
               deleted decoder (7), and converted the data into digital audio tape format. At the outset, we find                  
               no suggestion or teaching to relocate the signal processing prior to the buffers (9,11) because Ichijo              
               teaches comparing unencoded data from blocks g  - g of first order block memory (10) with decoded1   8                                                            
               data reproduced by ascertaining heads (3a, 3b).  We see no suggestion or teaching to store the coded                
               data from the signal processing means in the second memory other than from appellant's disclosure.                  
               The examiner's proposed deletion of the decoder (7) is inconsistent with his reliance on decoder (7) for            
               the claimed first buffer means (final rejection, page 3).  In addition, claim 1 calls for data strobe means         
               for receiving reproduced data from the magnetic tape.  The examiner relies upon decoders (5 and 7) as               
               the data strobe means.  However, as only decoder (7) receives reproduced data from the magnetic                     
               tape, deletion of the decoder (7) would result in the limitation regarding the data strobe means also not           
               being met by Ichijo.  In addition, claim 1 also calls for the second buffer to receive the reproduced               
               signal from the magnetic tape.  The examiner relies on the encoder/decoder (5) of Ichijo for the claimed            
               second buffer.  However, firstly, encoder/decoder (5) of Ichijo does not receive the signal reproduced              
               from the magnetic tape.  It receives the signal that was outputted to the magnetic                                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007