Appeal No. 1998-2542
Application No. 08/266,306
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
With respect to independent claims 1, 6 and 14, the
examiner notes that the admitted prior art describes a
conventional camcorder which combines a video camera with a
videotape recorder without a tuner. The examiner notes that
many of the recitations of these claims are not present in
this conventional camcorder of the admitted prior art. The
examiner cites Beyers as teaching all the elements of the
claims which are not part of the prior art camcorder. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to provide the conventional camcorder of the admitted
prior art with Beyers’ microprocessor and associated circuitry
to achieve efficient operation of the conventional camcorder
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007