Appeal No. 1998-2017
Application No. 08/802,216
Appellants also argue that “[t]he prior art in the rejection does not teach or suggest
a tape drive which read[s] tapes containing video data and tapes containing computer
data.” (Brief, page 8.) We agree. The teachings of the references are not sufficient to
support the asserted conclusion of obviousness. Both independent Claim 13 and
independent Claim 19 require selectively routing data from magnetic tape to computer
means or video means in response to detection of presence or absence of a header on
the magnetic tape.
As the examiner points out (Answer, page 5), the Abstract of Moss discloses that
the “nature of an incoming message” is identified by the presence or absence of a header
that has been attached “by a similar device which is transmitting.” However, in the context
of Moss, “header” refers to information accompanying electronic communications
transmitted over phone lines -- the “fax and/or digital data” as stated in the Moss Abstract.
Such a “header” is absent in voice communications and fails to trigger the machine-to-
machine protocols disclosed by Moss, so that the apparatus does not interfere with voice
communications. In any event, the rejection does not explain how the statement in the
Moss Abstract is deemed to support the conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject
matter.
Moss suggests, at page 2, that RAM 10 (which serves as a bi-directional memory
buffer) may be replaced or expanded with magnetic tape. We do not agree with
appellants’ assessment, as set forth on page 10 of the Brief, that this portion of the Moss
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007