Appeal No. 1999-0189
Application No. 08/344,691
From the comparison, it is clearly seen that none of the
limitations of application claims 42, 53, 55, 57, 59 and 61
(directed to method and apparatus for producing a signal used
for forming a record disc) is found in patent claims 1, 6, 7
and 12 (directed to method and apparatus for playing a record
disc). Inasmuch as our analysis of these claims agrees with
appellant’s arguments, we find that appellant has established
that the invention claimed in his patent is “independent and
distinct” from the invention of the appealed claims 42, 53,
55, 57, 59, 61 and the claims that depend therefrom. In other
words, the patent claims and the application claims are
patentably distinct inventions.
Each of the independent application claims 45, 54, 56 and
58 includes an audio normalizer for “adjusting a level of said
video/data signal to produce a normalized signal which
utilizes a full dynamic range of audio circuitry.” The
examiner has not explained how the application claims with
this feature could have been presented at the time of
prosecution of the patent claims, or how this claimed subject
matter is "covered" by the patent claims no matter what other
feature is incorporated in them. It would have been equally
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007