Appeal No. 1998-2017
Application No. 08/802,216
The examiner refers to Bar as disclosing a tape drive that reads both standard and
non-standard format tapes. The examiner relies on Yokota as teaching a header detection
circuit. (See Answer, pages 3 and 4.)
Appellants’ view, however, is that the “reference bursts” disclosed by Bar are within
the meaning of “header” as claimed. (See Brief, page 14.) Since Bar teaches
discriminating standard from non-standard format tapes based upon sensing the presence
or absence of the “reference bursts,” the Yokota reference (disclosing circuitry in an optical
disk drive) becomes a mere cumulative reference in the instant rejection. Appellants admit
that the teaching from Yokota upon which the examiner relies is present in the Bar
reference.
The examiner turns to the Moss reference, and the “data communication device”
disclosed therein, for a showing of selectively routing data “from a magnetic tape to a
computer port 16 and a video port 14.” (Answer, page 5.) In the examiner’s opinion, the
fax disclosed by Moss is a “video means” as presently claimed.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the “Moss scanner or fax machine is not equivalent
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, to claimed ‘video means’ as defined in the specification of
Appellants’ Application.” (Brief, page 9.) As appellants point out, the specification’s
description corresponding to the claimed “video means” is that of a video system for
continuous playback, which retrieves video data from a magnetic tape.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007