Appeal No. 1998-2541
Application No. 08/608,372
With respect to dependent claim 16, appellant argues that
Moe does not mark the location in memory where data was last
recorded when the stop button was pushed using a computer.
Since Moe discloses an endless tape loop, the location on the
tape loop begins just after the stop mark. Since Moe also
discloses that a random access memory could replace the
endless tape loop, Moe discloses that an address pointer would
indicate this same location in memory. Finally, the control
circuitry of Moe’s Figure 5 is a computer as broadly recited.
With respect to claim 17, appellant argues that a computer in
Moe does not stop the recording device. As noted above,
however, Moe discloses a computer in Figure 5, and this
computer stops the recording device in the manner recited in
claim 17. With respect to dependent claim 19, we agree with
the examiner that switch 16 of Moe constitutes a record
immediate button as recited in the claim. With respect to
dependent claim 20, the recovery button of Moe also operates
as the claimed reset button. Since we find that Moe fully
meets all the limitations of claims 15-17, 19 and 20, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2 and 5 under
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007