Appeal No. 1998-0156
Application 08/385,511
with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence
as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
There are two combinations of different references to reject various claims. We will
consider each combination separately.
YOSHIMURA AND HEINZ
Claims 3, 6 and 13 are rejected over this combination. They depend from independent
clams 1 and 5, therefore, they contain the limitations discussed above. The additional
reference, Heinz, is used for the concept of compression and expansion of all digital data, and
not to buttress the Examiner's position in regard to the limitations discussed above. Therefore,
the combination of Yoshimura and Heinz also does not meet the limitations discussed above.
Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 6 and 13 over
Yoshimura and Heinz.
YOSHIMURA AND YANAGIDA
Claim 9 is rejected over this combination. Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and therefore,
contains the same limitation as discussed above. The additional reference, Yanagida, is used
for the teaching of a camcorder arrangement to record audio and video signals, and not to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007