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