Appeal No. 1998-2541
Application No. 08/608,372
12 which depends therefrom. Since independent claim 21 has
the same recitation as claim 9, we also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 21.
With respect to independent claim 15, appellant argues
that Moe does not “cause said recording device to continue to
record information delayed by said delayed recording circuit
after a stop button has been pushed until all information
delayed up until the time the stop button is pushed has been
recorded” [brief, page 5]. We do not agree. The recovery
button in Moe corresponds to the claimed stop button. When
the recovery button in Moe is pushed, all the material which
has been delayed on the endless tape loop is recorded
beginning at the point just after the location of the stop
mark until the stop mark is reached. This results in the
recorder continuing to record delayed information until all
information on the tape has been recorded ending with the
point where the stop button was pushed. In our view, the
delayed recording circuit of Moe is configured to perform
exactly as recited in claim 15. Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 15.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007