Appeal No. 1998-2264
Application No. 08/439,793
is an impermissible procedural practice by the Examiner, we do
refer to paper no. 8 and find that Damoci was not used as a
reference in the rejection of claims 8 to 11. In this
instance , regardless of whether Damoci was, or was not, used3
to reject claims 8 to 11, we find that the suggested
combination of APA, or APA and Damoci, with Choichi would not
have yielded the claimed limitation (recited in claim 8) of
the circuit having “a switch circuit for controlling said
internal/external viewing changeover switch ... when the video
tape recorder is in a recording mode,” because the Choichi
reference does not disclose, or suggest, such a switch.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 8 and its dependent claims 9 to 11.
In summary, we have sustained the obviousness rejection
over APA and Damoci of claim 7, but we have not sustained the
obviousness rejection of claims 8 to 11 over APA and Choichi,
or over APA, Damoci and Choichi.
3In paper no. 8, Damoci was not used to reject claim 7.
But in paper no. 10 (final rejection), Damoci was used to
reject claim 7. Since claims 8 to 11 depend on claim 7,
Damoci is inherently used in their appealed rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007