Ex parte PARK - Page 9




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


               heads (2a, 2b) by RF amplifier (4) (col. 2, lines 54-57) which is not the same as the signal reproduced             
               from the magnetic tape by ascertaining heads (3a, 3b).  Secondly, upon deletion of decoder (7) as                   
               advanced by the examiner, the synchronization circuit (8) of Ichijo as well as the                                  
               decoder function of encoder/decoder (5) would have to be deleted for the recording apparatus to                     
               operate.  Accordingly, the claim limitations regarding the second buffer would also not be met.While                   
               we do agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to             
               have conformed the converted data to a digital audio tape format, as is well known in the art and has               
               not been disputed by appellant, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  103 cannot be sustained.                 
               Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  103 is reversed.                                            
                       With regard to the other independent claims 3, 4 and 17,  all three of these claims set forth               
               storing the converted digital signal in a second memory as well as the first and second buffers, with               
               claim 4 also reciting the data strobe means.  Accordingly, the rejection of these claims is reversed for            
               the same reasons as discussed, supra.                                                                               
                       As claims 5-7, 9, 16, 18, 19, 26 and 28 all depend from one of  claims 1, 3, 4 or 17, the                   
               rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 16, 18, 19, 26 and 28 is reversed.                                                      
                       Turning now to the rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, 10-15, 20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C.                 
                103 as being unpatentable over Ichijo in view of Yokogawa, as Yokogawa does not overcome the                      
               deficiencies of Ichijo, the rejection of claims 2, 8, 10-15, 20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C.  103 is                 
               reversed.                                                                                                           
                       Turning lastly to the rejection of dependent claims 21, 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                  
               being unpatentable over Ichijo in view of Taylor, as Taylor does not overcome the deficiencies of                   
               Ichijo, the rejection of claims 21, 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.  103 is also reversed.                               





                                                               -9-                                                                 





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007