Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
The examiner rationalizes that the table of contents would provide easy links between
related video and audio (ancillary) data sections, thereby improving the audio-video output.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale for inclusion of the table of contents into the
system of Wilkinson. Since each track is a linear storage area, we do not find a
convincing motivation for skilled artisans to desire to enable “rapid location of desired
items” (see answer at page 3) as advanced by the examiner.
We agree with appellant that the inclusion of the table of contents may provide the
indication of the structure of the remaining data areas from the initial inclusion in timing
area, but the additional data structures at those identified areas would not necessarily be
“independent” of the other data structures as claimed. (See brief at pages 21-22.)
Moreover, in a serial read/write system as taught by Wilkinson, the examiner’s motivation
for rapid location of desired items is not a convincing line of reasoning for the combination
of the two teachings. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and its
dependent claims 18 and 19. Independent claim 21 contains similar limitations and
therefore, the combination of Wilkinson and the Table of Contents does not suggest the
invention as claimed, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent
claims 22 and 25.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007